I had to read this thread about a dozen times straight through to make sure I had it straight. See, every point that ThinkingMan makes has been countered or questioned in a logical or reasonable way. But every post he makes reiterates he hasn't seen these posts or is ignoring them. It makes the conversation very confusing, perhaps a different language would help communicate? Espanol?

Quote:But every post he makes reiterates he hasn't seen these posts or is ignoring them.

Maybe he is blind?

(September 12, 2010 at 7:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:But every post he makes reiterates he hasn't seen these posts or is ignoring them.

Maybe he is blind?

Blind to everything else except his fucking quran.

If he honestly thinks a blatant forgery by a barely educated sand-dwelling pedophile Arab who flew on winged unicorns and lived 1400 years ago is representative of the ultimate truth of reality then that's his imperative.

Just don't expect us to take him seriously.

Actually, i'll say it outright - You are a fucking idiot.

---

(September 10, 2010 at 5:37 pm)Captain Scarlet Wrote: Firstly the syllogistic reasoning is logically valid.

I disagree, Kalam is dependent on A-theory of time in the way that it phrases and represents causality.

Too bad then that hardly anybody supports the a-theory of time.

It in effect makes his premise a bare-assertion fallacy.

Quote:ThinkingMan

A bit off topic but I'd like to share an observation that I realized pretty early on in life: The more people say, the less they are.

Very often, people with pretentious names or those who loudly tout certain virtues are inversely likely to actually possess them. Businesses that have "quality" in their name are more likely to be discount places than high-end. Fox Noise is the only "news" outlet that feels the need to claim "fair and balanced". Stay the hell away from any used car salesman with the nickname "honest (name)". "Family values" politicians who puff up their chests all the time about how sacred family is to them often seem to end up being in the middle of a sex scandal.

Anyone who posts online with a moniker like "thinking man" or "deep thinker" or any other intellectual virtue is likely to be a narrow-minded fundy apologist.

(September 12, 2010 at 7:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Maybe he is blind?

I'd say 'deluded' we be far more accurate.

He thinks he's got the best explaination out there and he seems thoroughly convinced that none of us are right or even close. Either because we don't understand science or we don't understand his 'infallible logic' when all he is really doing is filling in the answers without really answering the question. The exact same way you'd write random numbers in for a math problem that no one quite understands and he's telling us this is the simplest and most logical explaination and we're all wrong for saying that we don't honestly know the answer but science is still working out the problem.

That's basically how this is all going.

... besides, everyone knows the answer is 42.

(September 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm)ThinkingMan Wrote: I'm absolutely baffled as to how atheists do not accept the existence of a creator and can only imagine there views are based on stupidity, illogical and incorrect application of science rather then intellect, logic, science etc.

I applaud your Ad hominem attacks.

(September 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm)ThinkingMan Wrote: Science rocks however it deals only with tangible phenomenon. Since God is something of the unseen we cannot apply science to God. Therefore in this respect trying to 'prove' God with science is complete stupidity. Of course when we apply science to tangible phenomenon sicence can prove/disprove a lot of things. Moreover when people like apparent scientific agnostics say we are waiting for a god to be proven, the stupidity of their statement is completely ignorant of science itself considering God is not tangible to us.

-.-, that is all...

(September 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm)ThinkingMan Wrote: Nothing in existence creates itself or exists by its own accord. The very nature of anything in the known universe is that every thing is limited and dependent on something esle to maintain its existence. The question arises so where did everything come from. The only logical answer is that there must have been an initator/creator that started everything. The properties of this initiator/creator is that it is not limited or dependent on anything else to exist. Therefore God created everything and God has nothing before him.

No, no, no. You state that everything must be created, but then you say GOD doesn't need to be, and you claim that for something to be created something more complex must have created it, by that logic it is more logical to assume the universe always existed (less complex) than god always existed (more complex)

(September 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm)ThinkingMan Wrote: It really is so simple. If I say x+3=5. You will say x MUST be 2 otherwise the rest of the equation cannot hold true. The proof that x is 2 is the rest of the equation. Likewise the proof that God exist is us, we are the proof. If he didnt exist theres no way that we would exist. The unlimited undependant creator is the neccessity for our universe to exist.

overused false argument.

(September 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm)ThinkingMan Wrote: People discuss what came first the chicken or the egg? The answer is that it doesnt matter how many chickens or eggs came later neither does it matter if the initial creation was a chicken or an egg, the point is that whatever came first i.e. chicken or egg God must have come before it and God is neither a chicken or an egg, he is an unlimited idependant creator.

And this proves what exactly?

(September 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm)ThinkingMan Wrote: The tools science uses are tangible, limited and dependent i.e. do not exist by their own accord
and can only deal with tangible phoenomemon which have the same properties and do not exist by their own accord. Based on this fact and the simple essential logic I have explained any sensible and logic minded person has no choice but to accept the existence of a creator. Therefore please do not himuluate scence by trying to apply it to God and please stop being thinking illogically when it comes to the question of God. The signs of your creator are all around you e.g. the sun, the moon, the alternation of night and day and everything else we know to exist.

At this point you just repeat... And with bad spelling and grammar, if you wish to insult someone's intelligence ensure first that your intelligence exceeds theirs.

(September 9, 2010 at 8:19 pm)ThinkingMan Wrote: It really is not complicated, hidden or strange at all. You merely need to think sensibly and everything becomes clear. If you want to dispute anything in this article please address the specific points I have made with science, logic and reasoning. If you cannot, then that clearly shows your views on life are devoid of any intellect, logic etc

I don't need science you prove you wrong

(September 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm)ThinkingMan Wrote: I'm still waiting for somebody to pick a hole in my logic from my original post.

Didn't the overbearingly obvious fallacy of untestability ever occur to you once after typing in that inane pile of emotional incoherent drivel you tried to pass off as an argument for god?

In summary your position is simply this:-

Scientific process discovers the universe is larger than expected.
ThinkingMan asserts god is outside that and beyond investigation.

Scientific process unveils the universe is but one of many, a multiverse.
ThinkingMan asserts god is outside that too.

Scientific process realises the universe exists in but one dimension; there are microverses and macroverses much larger and smaller than our own.
ThinkingMan asserts god is outside those also.

And so on... and so on...

You keep moving the goalposts over and over, until you end up with a concept by which its definition is incomprehensible, it has no explanatory power, and cannot be repeated, falsified or demonstrated to anyone else to actually exist in reality, in fact you imply its' attributes as "unreal", so as far as science goes your god concept is utterly irrelevant, a fucking joke of a non-answer.

Now everyone's identified various flaws with your invalid logic, reasoning and cause-and-effect thinking, are you prepared to get off your soap box and address them?

A universe from nothing:





Go to 40 mins, 39 seconds.

Lawrence Krauss Wrote:The universe is flat, it has zero total energy, and it could have begun from nothing.

This answers this crazy question religious people keep throwing out, which is why is there something rather than nothing? The answer is there had to be, if you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something. It's that simple, it doesn’t convince any of those people, but it's true.

/thread

Quote:Didn't the overbearingly obvious fallacy of untestability ever occur to you once after typing in that inane pile of emotional incoherent drivel you tried to pass off as an argument for god?

Apparently not.