(November 5, 2014 at 6:31 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm)coldwx Wrote: The question was corroboration from other sources. Do you deny that the preservation of the mummy and the examination of the same is not an external corroborating source? Seriously? The mummy itself has been examined by hundreds of "external" sources.

Apparently you are still confused on what "external Egyptian sources" mean, and it is very unfortunate.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm)coldwx Wrote: The tomb itself was examined by "external" sources.

very unfortunate.

(November 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm)coldwx Wrote: This is not hard. You gave a poor challenge and you were rightly criticized for it. Not admitting you failed on this regard gives the appearance of simply arguing to be a contrarian.
Also, the Amarna letters possibly mentions Tut

Very unfortunate indeed.

You're fucking hilarious. You gave no rebuttal just repeated your aforementioned incredulity over and over. Stick around though, it is humorous watching you get spanked.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Or a supernatural cause that isn't a god.

So please define a supernatural cause that creates a universe/time from nothing and not fit the definition of "god". What would you call such a being? We call such a being "god". They may call it something different, but the fact of the matter is...it is the same entity being called a different name.

You asked for it:
Dave did it!
Dave is a high school kid in a 5+2 dimensional Universe. As part of his class on unstable matter, he mixed protoplasmoidium with an unstable 4+1 dimensional substance he calls paintium. From that, he obtains plasmopaintinium and a few excess materials. A splat of those excess materials generates what we call a 3+1 dimensional universe, like ours!
And then we know what happens in here.
Dave is completely oblivious to the generation of a bunch of universes that his splats just caused... nor do any of his class mates who also create a bunch of other universes.... every bi-year, new batches of students come along and create new universes.

If I can think of this possibility, this hypothesis... just imagine how many more hypothesis there are that can be imagined.
Your god is but an infinitesimal speck in the realm of all possibilities....

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Or 'I don't know'.

Which would still give rise to the POSSIBILITY of naturalism.

Of course. It is a possibility.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yet. Science doesn't know everything. What science doesn't know doesn't add a whit to the odds that you're right.

I think Jesus hasn't made his return to earth, "yet".

Nor santa.
Nor Harry Potter.
And Han Solo is yet to come for the first time.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: They are not theories. They are hypotheses. Evolution, on the other hand is a scientific theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Evolution is a 160 year old LIE.

How so?

(November 5, 2014 at 6:37 pm)Losty Wrote: I believe that life came into existence because on top of that spaghetti there was a meatball all covered in cheese.

...was, that is, until the Great Sneezing.

And the coming of the great white handkerchief

(November 5, 2014 at 6:31 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 4:42 pm)coldwx Wrote: The question was corroboration from other sources. Do you deny that the preservation of the mummy and the examination of the same is not an external corroborating source? Seriously? The mummy itself has been examined by hundreds of "external" sources.

Apparently you are still confused on what "external Egyptian sources" mean, and it is very unfortunate.

So then you do deny that the numerous scientist's examining Tut's body in the 19th century lived outside Egyptian antiquity? Is that the argument you are sticking with?

(November 5, 2014 at 6:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: It would have helped if you looked at the context at which I made the statement.

I did. Unfortunately it didn't help mask your ignorance about the nature of evidence and scientific research.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: For his identity to be so unfamiliar, he sure as hell left a legacy behind that is unlike any other person in history. His legacy surpassed Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Christoper Columbus, George Washington, etc..and right now, billions of people worship him to this day, as Christianity is the world's biggest religion, as it has the most followers.

Not bad for an unknown guy.

Ah. I take it you failed to note my intentional reference to Luke 24.

Btw, Santa Claus is pretty popular among the kiddies of the world too. You STILL writing to him?

(November 5, 2014 at 6:42 pm)KichigaiNeko Wrote: And the coming of the great white handkerchief

I like where this is going.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 4:25 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You can't honestly say atheists in general believe in magic at all.

If you believe inanimate matter came to life, that is worse than magic..that is voodoo.

That you consider science's best guess to be voodoo is more a problem for you than me, I think.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Ok, what steps?

Here's a link to an extremely basic and nonprimary source, if you can be troubled:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I will give you courtesy of asking you to provide me of the mysterious steps that you claim I missed, instead of just flat out assuming that you don't know the steps.

Praising me with faint damns, eh?

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, the atheists that don't accept that God did it, nor that abiogenesis did it...what are they left with?

Cockamamie stuff for the most part. You explain how Hindus believe the universe originated, and I'll tell you what the Raellians think. If you don't think you're responsible for explaining the views of other theists which you don't share, maybe you can see why asking random atheists for the views of atheists they don't agree with isn't the best way to find out this stuff.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The God hypothesis can be falsified. If you postulate a God that is based on a logically incoherent concept...that makes that God false.

That's the thing. There are as many version of God as people care to make up. Some are incoherent. Some are counterfactual. Some are coherent. The problem with the coherent ones, is they all seem to be immune to falsification. It takes more than coherency to make a claim true. A hypothesis has to be at LEAST coherent to start with, and it must ALSO be falsifiable. You need a coherent concept that's falsifiable. That is, there has to be, at least in theory, evidence that could prove it isn't true. Not to mention, with multiple coherent God but mutually exclusive God concepts, they can't ALL be true...but they CAN all be false.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: yeah, because I challenge the notion that it happened at ALL.

That was hard to parse. I take it that you agree that it costs you nothing to present the abiogenesis position fairly and accurately.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Oh, I definitely understood it..I just didn't grant it.

Now I'm leaning to you really didn't understand it, because whether you grant it is beside the point.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, that is my standard.

Well, I can work with that. When you can show an invisible spirit poofed the universe and life into existence by talking and breathing, I'll believe it. Then, you'll still need to show it punished all of humanity for eating a magic fruit because they were tricked by a talking snake but it forgave us because it sacrificed itself to itself, but the forgiveness only applies to the people who swallow that story whole and everyone else is tortured forever, so you better believe it!

Wow, your story is even more unbelievable than mine, so mine must be true. I can see why people are attracted to fallacies, they are so much more fun and easy than thinking.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: But whatever they believe in has to have explanatory value. As I think I've demonstrated, a timeless cause is needed. So unless the atheist believe these "ghosts" transcended time before the universe, then there position suffers from a virus called "irrationatitis". These ghosts would also have to be able to create from nothing, thereby being extremely powerful.

I don't think they're rational, either. It's kind of you to assume atheists must be rational, but it isn't true. Many atheists don't even aspire to it, but I don't think theists can really throw stones in that regard.

You know, you don't have to get stuck on the definition of 'atheist'. You wouldn't go to a Hindu board getting stuck on the defintion of 'theist' would you? The term 'freethinker' is a broad one that applies to most of the people you actually want to have this conversation with, you might try that. Or 'skeptic'. Or 'empirical rationalist'. Or even 'naturalist' if you get the difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism.

free·think·er noun \-ˈthiŋ-kər\ : a person who forms his or her own opinions about important subjects (such as religion and politics) instead of accepting what other people say

: one who forms opinions on the basis of reason independently of authority; especially : one who doubts or denies religious dogma

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: And my goodness, when you take away all the fluff and feathers, the being(s) that they call "ghosts" is just another name for....God.

They don't seem to fit the definition YOU gave.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Well, the vast majority I've come across believes "naturedidit". That is from about almost 15 years in to apologetics.

And almost all of my experience with theists is with Christians and Muslims. Yet I don't have a problem grasping that not all theists are Christians and Muslims. Your experience with naturalists should have equipped you with foreknowledge that Western atheists who fit your bill are also fussy about accurate definitions.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: So please define a supernatural cause that creates a universe/time from nothing and not fit the definition of "god". What would you call such a being? We call such a being "god". They may call it something different, but the fact of the matter is...it is the same entity being called a different name.

Why you keep expecting me to expand on details of the beliefs of people I don't agree with is mysterious to me. Do you get a lot of people expecting you to explain Shintoism because you're a theist?

Many Buddhists, who may be, but are not necessarily, atheists; believe there are many worlds sustained by karma, but the worlds aren't actually physical, they are composed of the minds of the inhabitants, and a new plane of existence is created when it first gets an inhabitant with a mind.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Which would still give rise to the POSSIBILITY of naturalism.

No kidding.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: It is a game. Sure, there are people out there that believe all sorts of crazy things...but the vast majority of atheists I've come across in my years, none of them ever expressed to me that they believe in a supernatural reality with at ALL.

And the vast majority of theists I've come across in my years have never expressed to me that they don't believe Jesus is either the son of God or a prophet of God. But I know there are at least 2 billion theists who don't believe that, even though they're not common where I live.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Regardless of what you did to validate a theory, something was done. Nothing has been done yet to validate the origin of consciousness, OR abiogenesis.

I can agree with that. They are unconfirmed hypotheses. Anyone who says otherwise is overreaching.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I think Jesus hasn't made his return to earth, "yet".

And Jesus showing up would be a great validation of your faith. Until then, your evidential footing is insecure.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Evolution is a 160 year old LIE.

You're welcome to think so. That would make it a vast conspiracy, and if that's easier for you to believe than that they're on to something, I'd rather you stay a Christian. We have enough conspiracy nuts as it is.

(November 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You do realize that an unatural cause is a supernatural cause, right?

That was kind of the point, but I can think of unnatural causes that aren't supernatural: there are some sci fi scenarios that could fit the bill, for instance, like time travellers or the Matrix.

(November 5, 2014 at 2:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 2:28 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Yeah but the math wont get you an infinite universe, according to the BGV theorem.

So you're still insisting this, despite being given video evidence that G and V don't agree with you?

I will deal with you and that other post tomorrow. Right now I'm dealing with the what I would call......"quick fires"

---

(November 5, 2014 at 2:56 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 2:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So you're still insisting this, despite being given video evidence that G and V don't agree with you?

You can lead a creationist to evidence but you cannot make him think.

Evidence? What evidence?

(November 5, 2014 at 10:50 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 5, 2014 at 2:55 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So you're still insisting this, despite being given video evidence that G and V don't agree with you?

I will deal with you and that other post tomorrow. Right now I'm dealing with the what I would call......"quick fires"

---

(November 5, 2014 at 2:56 pm)Beccs Wrote: You can lead a creationist to evidence but you cannot make him think.

Evidence? What evidence?

The evidence you utterly deny.