I will prove to you that God exists

[Nay_Sayer]

Then show me the actual fucking god, O mortal.

No scriptures.

No personal testimonies.

No second- and third-hand "miracle stories."

No "But look at the stars! And the sunsets! And the cute little pussycats!" nonsense.

And absolutely no, I repeat, no philosophical masturbation.  You cannot logic, philosophize or otherwise wish a nonexistent being into existence.

One (1) empirically testable god-like being, here in the physical world, or STFU and GTFO.

No philosophical masturbation like the water in the puddle story? It takes a lot of whacking to convince oneself that has anything to do with the fine-tuning of the universe.

Why are you taking up for Order? Surely He can answer for himself

[Nay_Sayer]

In general, theists keep promoting their philosophical arguments when cosmology long ago became a science.  Drew is just another case of Maslow's hammer.

They haven't caught up with the simple fact that science, again and again, has decisively shown that the way the universe actually works is counter-intuitive.

You have to be able to do the math, or at least to believe the people who can.

You folks are such faithful believers I believe you start boards like this just to re-affirm you faith. You convince yourselves there is overwhelming evidence against a Creator and solid evidence the universe and life was caused inadvertently. Yet only a pathetic number of people subscribe to atheism. Its not theists (Falwell or Swaggert) who are claiming we live in a multiverse its reputable scientists. When are you folks going to straighten these scientists out...explain about the water and the puddle. Obviously they just don't know about that, no one's explained it to them. You don't need an infinitude of universes to cause one ours...just like you don't need an infinitude of puddles. Just write them your puddle thesis and I'm sure they'll all retract their position on multiverse theory. They just need you people to show them the way...that's it...that's the ticket,

Atheism is now a religion? Your becoming more and more disjointed and hard to read.  Perhaps take a minute to wipe the tears as you continue to throw a tantrum.

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

[Nay_Sayer]

It seems he's resorted to the final tactic of the apologist: " No, you're religious, " " No, you're the cult, " -- projection, projection, projection.

Drew is only human.  If he can't change our minds, he wants to get our goat.

I will give my life to protect Bubby, he may not have much in the way of brains or smell but he's our sweet little goat

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If Drew ever decides to open a petting zoo, I can get him a deal on goats. I know a guy.

Boru

[Sheldon]

I think you're right, who could have seen that coming. 


I bet they're bragging about how they debunked atheism right now, on some religious forum?

I tried to reset the debate from a different angle with a new post and though it grew to three pages fast, it was shut down as spam. Religious folk don't want me on their boards anymore than this group does. 

There is no need to debunk a belief that only manages to convince 5% of the population. I should spend time debunking Big Foot and UFO's.

Atheism is not a belief, and basing an argument on a bare appeal to numbers is still fallacious, it is an argumentum ad populum fallacy. So you're not resetting the debate, you're using the same logical fallacies, and semantic sophistry, trying to falsely misrepresent atheism as a belief. 

Maybe if you showed some integrity, and something beyond endless repetition of semantic duplicity, and fallacious arguments, people might not treat you with such disdain.

[Sheldon]

Then show me the actual fucking god, O mortal.

No scriptures.

No personal testimonies.

No second- and third-hand "miracle stories."

No "But look at the stars! And the sunsets! And the cute little pussycats!" nonsense.

And absolutely no, I repeat, no philosophical masturbation.  You cannot logic, philosophize or otherwise wish a nonexistent being into existence.

One (1) empirically testable god-like being, here in the physical world, or STFU and GTFO.

It takes a lot of whacking to convince oneself that has anything to do with the fine-tuning of the universe.

You have been unable to demonstrate any objective evidence, or even rational argument, that the universe is fine tuned. That alone is a sound reason to withhold belief from your claim.

FYI, that post was responding to the claims Order had made, and though they are just as vapid and irrational as your own arguments, they were not based on your subjective and unevidenced religious belief, that the universe is fine tuned.

[Sheldon]

Too many theists believe they have the inside track to inspired knowledge of the world (through their scriptures or the holy ghost or whatever).  Too many of them don't trust the experts anymore, since the experts tell them that counter-intuitive ideas are in fact correct.

Sometimes I think we are progressing too fast for our little ape-brains to keep up.  Other times I simply blame certain people for not doing their homework.

I've relied on what scientists have established and are reporting. I've quoted scientists and cut and pasted their findings. Not one quote from scripture from me.

More sophistry, I asked you repeatedly to cite any peer reviewed scientific research, that demonstrates a deity, or any supernatural cause, exists, or is even possible, and you have not even tried to respond. I also pointed out that the fact that atheism rises sharply among scientists, and is almost universal among elite scientists, is at odds with what you're trying to imply, and of course you never honestly addressed those facts either.

[Sheldon]

It's time Drew understood that probability is a scientific theory, not a subjective opinion, and the "this seems to involve long odds, that I have subjectively decided aren't possible, so I am going to insert an unevidenced deity, using inexplicable magic, from an archaic superstition", argument, is never going to pass muster with the scientific world, or anyone citing rational objections.

I certainly wouldn't understand anything from you Sheldon. 

Ad hominem, and a straw man, well done. I did not create probability theory, so it's not "coming from me". 

You assert the universe and life is the result of mindless, lifeless natural forces that just had nothing better to do than to cause a universe with all the conditions for life to occur. 

I have never asserted this, and have stated repeatedly and unequivocally that I have never made any such claim, and yet you keep repeating this fallacious straw man lie, odd how you whine people don't want you on their debate forums, then lie relentlessly like this, it seems you are irony impaired, as well as lacking any integrity. Some self awareness on your part, and a lot less sulking, might help you understand why people don't care to have you "pissing in their pool", so to speak. 

Your only measure for rational objections is that you agree with them.

Another bare faced lie, and I invite everyone to note your straw man fallacy above, in this very post, I have underlined it since you are lying about them, and my motivation, and justification for pointing them out. Oh Drew,  you just can't stop stepping on your own dick, bless.

[Mister Agenda]

In general, theists keep promoting their philosophical arguments when cosmology long ago became a science.  Drew is just another case of Maslow's hammer.

They haven't caught up with the simple fact that science, again and again, has decisively shown that the way the universe actually works is counter-intuitive.

You have to be able to do the math, or at least to believe the people who can.

You folks are such faithful believers I believe you start boards like this just to re-affirm you faith. You convince yourselves there is overwhelming evidence against a Creator and solid evidence the universe and life was caused inadvertently. Yet only a pathetic number of people subscribe to atheism. Its not theists (Falwell or Swaggert) who are claiming we live in a multiverse its reputable scientists. When are you folks going to straighten these scientists out...explain about the water and the puddle. Obviously they just don't know about that, no one's explained it to them. You don't need an infinitude of universes to cause one ours...just like you don't need an infinitude of puddles. Just write them your puddle thesis and I'm sure they'll all retract their position on multiverse theory. They just need you people to show them the way...that's it...that's the ticket,

The important thing is that you understand how insulting it is to accuse someone of having faith.

I'm not aware of any overwhelming evidence against a Creator. I'm just not aware of convincing evidence that there is one. Or some, I suppose. If there is a Creator and it's a committee, it would explain a lot.

A hypothesis is not a claim.

[Sheldon]

I tried to reset the debate from a different angle with a new post and though it grew to three pages fast, it was shut down as spam. Religious folk don't want me on their boards anymore than this group does. 

There is no need to debunk a belief that only manages to convince 5% of the population. I should spend time debunking Big Foot and UFO's.

You posted your list of things that are evidence for God in that thread, which duplicated what you've written here.  I suspect that is why your thread got shut down.  If you started a thread that wasn't a repeat of prior material, I don't think you would meet a similar objection.  By my light, you've been pushing Rees' book and fine-tuning on this forum for at least 10 years.  Maybe it's time that you got some new material.

Or he could tried to learn why his arguments are irrational, instead of making up pointless lies, in the form of ad hominem reposts, that don't address his many fallacious arguments, or the rational objections at all. No one is saying that @Drew_2013 can't be as irrational as he likes, or set as low a bar for credulity as he likes, after all, only why his arguments are irrational / weak, and why his threshold for credulity is  subjective, and they don't or rather can't share it.