(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Do you deny that several constants lie within an extremely narrow range that would allow life as we know it to exist?
Yes. There is no evidence of any such range.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: To the best of my knowledge correct me it I am wrong the majority of scientists claim the universe (as it is now) came into existence about 13 and a half billion years ago.
You are wrong. All the scientists actually say is that the universe started expanding from a singularity 13.5 billion years ago. It has not stayed the same since then, therefore, it did not come into existence as it is now 13.5 billion years ago and there is no evidence to suggest that it did not exist at any point of time.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I assume none of my arguments will hold water with you, they do hold water with me and may hold water with uncommitted lurkers in this discussion board. It may come as a shock but thus far in my opinion none of your counter arguments hold water.
What shocks me is your ignorance of how a rational debate works. Your opinion is meaningless, as are mine. If your arguments stand up to logical scrutiny, then they hold water and yours don't as evidenced by repeated use of logical fallacies and invalid conclusions.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: I will continue to say it as it remains true.
If it were true then you'd be able to provide evidence for it.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Hypothetical objections don't negate the fact that several constants fall in an extremely narrow range to allow life. Deal with it.
Since your "extremely narrow range" itself is hypothetical and has no evidence to support it, any and all hypothetical objections are sufficient to refute it. Deal with it.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: The merit of my arguments can be judged by those who don't have a dog in this hunt, I don't give a rats ass what my opponent thinks. I'm not asking for your approval or consent.
It has been judged to be without merit. Over and over again. And yet you keep repeating it. Surely, you must be looking for someones consent or approval.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Some religious societies are clearly worse off than secular ones. The USA is a secular government with a theistic philosophy.
And fortunately, it often ignores that theistic philosophy in favor of rational philosophy. Which is why it works.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: Its the only if, its the basis of the discussion at hand.
No, its not. The discussion is taking place at both fronts - and as it happens, you are wrong on both.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: You can't debate a topic and also be the judge of who is making a case or not.
Sure I can. If I can prove my case.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: They give the accused due process and protect the unalienable rights of the abused by imprisoning those who infringe them. Of course its not a perfect system.
And in doing so, infringe upon the inalienable rights of the accused - thereby making those rights alienable.
(February 20, 2013 at 1:03 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: They can be taken away by due process. They are upheld by the government and even the most heineous offenders get their day in court.
It doesn't matter how or why they are taken away. Your argument was that since they were endowed by the "creator" and not the government, they cannot be taken away by the government. But since they can be taken away by the government, by your logic, that means they must have been given by it in the first place. That the government chooses to have a procedure in place to keep checks upon itself is besides the point.
