The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[R00tKiT]

I care about your opinion of my position again why? Oh, wait I just remembered I don't. Did I say there were causes before? No, I don't think I did. You realize one can find nothing illogical about a position but not accept it, And at the same time reject the first cause arguments because they are all rubbish.

You don't get to play the agnostic position on whether there is a first cause or not, you stupid kid. There either are infinite actual causes or a first cause. Now pick one, or go back to kindergarten.

Well bored of listening to the same rubbish theist babble for the one-millionth time. Conversing with you is about as stimulating as reasoning with a bucket of warm water. 🥱🥱🥱

Have a lovely evening

Leave the words "theist", "conversing", "reasoning" for people capable of heavy thinking, you're just embarassing yourself now.

---

When you say god are you referring to the farting unicorn? Because last I checked it couldn’t even move its ass.

Talk is very easy. You can always make a god and give all the power. Doesn’t mean much more than gobbledygook.

I see you're backing off now. Under the assumption of the existence of a three-omni being- call it unicorn or anything you like, why do you think breaking laws of nature is impossible for the latter ?

[Apollo]

I care about your opinion of my position again why? Oh, wait I just remembered I don't. Did I say there were causes before? No, I don't think I did. You realize one can find nothing illogical about a position but not accept it, And at the same time reject the first cause arguments because they are all rubbish.

You don't get to play the agnostic position on whether there is a first cause or not, you stupid kid. There either are infinite actual causes or a first cause. Now pick one, or go back to kindergarten.

Well bored of listening to the same rubbish theist babble for the one-millionth time. Conversing with you is about as stimulating as reasoning with a bucket of warm water. 🥱🥱🥱

Have a lovely evening

Leave the words "theist", "conversing", "reasoning" for people capable of heavy thinking, you're just embarassing yourself now.

---

When you say god are you referring to the farting unicorn? Because last I checked it couldn’t even move its ass.

Talk is very easy. You can always make a god and give all the power. Doesn’t mean much more than gobbledygook.

I see you're backing off now. Under the assumption of the existence of a three-omni being- call it unicorn or anything you like, why do you think breaking laws of nature is impossible for the latter ?

That was jest—I will wait (without holding my breath) for math and data. Take your time.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I care about your opinion of my position again why? Oh, wait I just remembered I don't. Did I say there were causes before? No, I don't think I did. You realize one can find nothing illogical about a position but not accept it, And at the same time reject the first cause arguments because they are all rubbish.

You don't get to play the agnostic position on whether there is a first cause or not, you stupid kid. There either are infinite actual causes or a first cause. Now pick one, or go back to kindergarten.

Well bored of listening to the same rubbish theist babble for the one-millionth time. Conversing with you is about as stimulating as reasoning with a bucket of warm water. 🥱🥱🥱

Have a lovely evening

Leave the words "theist", "conversing", "reasoning" for people capable of heavy thinking, you're just embarassing yourself now.

---

When you say god are you referring to the farting unicorn? Because last I checked it couldn’t even move its ass.

Talk is very easy. You can always make a god and give all the power. Doesn’t mean much more than gobbledygook.

I see you're backing off now. Under the assumption of the existence of a three-omni being- call it unicorn or anything you like, why do you think breaking laws of nature is impossible for the latter ?

1. You don't get to dictate the options, I'm afraid, And the only one here who belongs in kindergarten is the person with an invisible friend.

2. Your right those words are for heavy thinkers. This is why someone like you shouldn't be using them, And the only one between us who should be embarrassed is you for your comedy of errors on this forum. But that would require self-awareness and a sense of shame, two qualities you lack. 

Now I believe I have already told you this conversation was at an end. But since you are slow. So I will simplify it for you.

Piss off Kloraborabingbang !!!🤣🤣🤣

[Angrboda]

I don't have time to respond to the rest at this time, but since you've raised the point multiple times, I have to ask, in the interest of clarity, what ends you are suggesting the universe is clearly adapted toward achieving?  The universe isn't in any sense adapted toward the end of being itself, so its fine-tuning seems an unlikely meaning.  If you are claiming the universe appears adapted for the existence of life, then you are simply wrong.  Life is opportunistic, in as much as it is clearly defined -- which it isn't. 

The universe may have for an end making life possible.

It might.  Then again it might not.  Even if we did know enough to make any generalizations about "life" per se, as opposed to "life as we know it," which are not the same thing.

Whether life is opportunistic or not is irrelevant.

Not true.  It's highly relevant, as if life conforms to the universe regardless of whether the universe is conformed to life, then the existence of life says nothing about design.

We really are here, and we should account for that.

That's assuming there is a reason behind our being here, which is a form of begging the question.  If there is no reason for our being here, then there is no accounting for it.

Randomness and blind processes can't be the right answer, they're not even an answer. A random process still needs a starting point, an initial value.

It's not exactly clear what you're trying to express here.  If you're suggesting that natural processes cannot explain life, then I'd say you're mistaken.  You seem to mix parts of unrelated arguments freely, so it's not clear why you introduce the question of beginnings.  However, the fact that something needs a beginning doesn't lead to the conclusion that any specific endpoint was intended at that beginning.  Life is a possible endpoint that might have been intended.  Or, perhaps God likes heavy elements and designed the universe toward that end, and life was just an accidental byproduct.  Or perhaps God had no further thought to the universe than that he found this set of constants more aesthetically pleasing than any other, and he didn't care about life or any of the rest.  It echoes a point in a summary of objections to the common claim that the universe was fine-tuned for life that I'll link you to shortly.  The fact is, only the designer can inform us of his/her intentions, the universe itself is mute and uninformative with regards to any designer's intentions.  If I hand you a screwdriver, you might infer that I want you to tighten some screws.  Unbeknownst to you, I actually want you to use it to hammer some nails.  What you think the screwdriver might be best suited for is irrelevant.

So, no, you haven't provided any compelling justification for believing that the universe was fine-tuned for "life" -- whatever that might be defined as.

And finally, you're wrong about the necessity of starting points.  The Hawking-Hartle No-boundary proposal dispenses with beginnings, as does Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model.  And those are just two models that we know about from modern physics.  It's possible the explanation for the existence of the universe is something we haven't yet imagined.  As Rumsfield said, there are always the unknown unknowns.  So suggesting God, design, or creation events are necessary explanations because we lack alternatives becomes an argument from ignorance, with the corresponding conclusion that such arguments are invalid, and their conclusions not reliably true.

See also, claims CI120 and CI301 at TalkOrigins: An Index To Creationist Claims for additional problems with your argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, they could be - there's no specific reason that randomness and blind processes couldn't yield a given outcome.  I don't see why it would matter to us, though, since we're not talking about the products of randomness or blind processes.

Blind or unconscious processes aren't supposed to yield conscious beings -us, that's why it's more probable than not that a conscious agent is behind these ((blind)) processes, because they seem to forcibly yield our existence.

Why not?  Why aren't blind or unconscious processes supposed to yield conscious beings?  Additionally, why do you keep babbling about blind unconscious processes as we discuss life?

[no one]

Is plant food still synthesizing utter horseshit?

[R00tKiT]

Why not?  Why aren't blind or unconscious processes supposed to yield conscious beings?

because they are ... UNconscious ? It's good to splash your face with cold water from time to time, you know.. to pay more attention to prefixes and all.
Are monkeys randomly typing on a keyboard for 100 years supposed to produce one of Shakespeare's plays ? ..... you guessed it, no.

Additionally, why do you keep babbling about blind unconscious processes as we discuss life?

Because it's really unlikely that these unconscious, lifeless processes would produce life if there was no agent planning all this ahead.

---

Not true.  It's highly relevant, as if life conforms to the universe regardless of whether the universe is conformed to life, then the existence of life says nothing about design.

And now you run into the obvious problem... what would say anything about design, then ? If you think life with all its complexity isn't .. enough ..
Besides.. can you define design for me please ? Nobody so far gave a good definition.

That's assuming there is a reason behind our being here, which is a form of begging the question.  If there is no reason for our being here, then there is no accounting for it.

I'm not sure what you mean by reason. In any case, there is a cause to this universe, and one is forced to pick between first cause and infinite regress. There is no third option, no agnostic position.

It's not exactly clear what you're trying to express here.  If you're suggesting that natural processes cannot explain life, then I'd say you're mistaken.  You seem to mix parts of unrelated arguments freely, so it's not clear why you introduce the question of beginnings.  However, the fact that something needs a beginning doesn't lead to the conclusion that any specific endpoint was intended at that beginning.  Life is a possible endpoint that might have been intended.  Or, perhaps God likes heavy elements and designed the universe toward that end, and life was just an accidental byproduct.  Or perhaps God had no further thought to the universe than that he found this set of constants more aesthetically pleasing than any other, and he didn't care about life or any of the rest.  It echoes a point in a summary of objections to the common claim that the universe was fine-tuned for life that I'll link you to shortly.  The fact is, only the designer can inform us of his/her intentions, the universe itself is mute and uninformative with regards to any designer's intentions.  If I hand you a screwdriver, you might infer that I want you to tighten some screws.  Unbeknownst to you, I actually want you to use it to hammer some nails.  What you think the screwdriver might be best suited for is irrelevant.

So, no, you haven't provided any compelling justification for believing that the universe was fine-tuned for "life" -- whatever that might be defined as.

And finally, you're wrong about the necessity of starting points.  The Hawking-Hartle No-boundary proposal dispenses with beginnings, as does Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology model.  And those are just two models that we know about from modern physics.  It's possible the explanation for the existence of the universe is something we haven't yet imagined.  As Rumsfield said, there are always the unknown unknowns.  So suggesting God, design, or creation events are necessary explanations because we lack alternatives becomes an argument from ignorance, with the corresponding conclusion that such arguments are invalid, and their conclusions not reliably true.

First of all, the models you're talking are proposals deduced from mathematical formulations, they're not related to any empirical observation, so you can't rely on them to run away from the problem of the first cause.
Secondly, it's logically forced that there either is a first cause or an infinite regress, this has nothing to do with appeal to ignorance or lack of imagination. Finite or infinite, not both, no third option. Now you say the universe itself is the first cause, I say everything we know about modern physics, most importantly the BB, makes your proposal highly unlikely.

[no one]

Translation:
Life is scary, and confusing. Death is even more frightening. I am so god damned important, there must be something waiting for my significantly wonderful ass.

[R00tKiT]

Translation:
Life is scary, and confusing. Death is even more frightening. I am so god damned important, there must be something waiting for my significantly wonderful ass.

This is a stupid line of thought. There is nothing comforting with an afterlife, either. Ceasing to exist is much better than the slightest possibility of eternal damnation.

[Foxaèr]

This is a stupid line of thought. There is nothing comforting with an afterlife, either. Ceasing to exist is much better than the slightest possibility of eternal damnation.

All I see is religious people scaring themselves into believing, as you have so aptly demonstrated.