Posts: 201
Threads: 0
Joined: April 16, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: Evidence Against God
April 20, 2012 at 11:54 pm
(This post was last modified: April 20, 2012 at 11:55 pm by Abishalom.)
(April 20, 2012 at 11:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Apologies for this sudden reversal; I haven't really been following this thread since there's a limit to the amount of idiocy I can take in a day and my tolerance threshold, normally set low in any case, tends to fluctuate depending on my mood. However I simply won't be able to sleep if I don't harpoon this particular whopper:
(April 17, 2012 at 12:49 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Man made objects cannot orbit the sun, therefore the orbiting teapot cannot exist.
Manmade objects most certainly and abolutely can orbit the Sun. Meet Helios-1 and -2, launched into heliocentric (Sun-centred) orbits of around 190 days; the now-retired and decommissioned Ulysses, launched from Discovery in 1990 into a 6.2 year heliocentric orbit; and STEREO, the Solar TErrestrial RElations Observatory (I just love those painfully shoehorned NASA acronyms), consisting of two spacecraft - STEREO-Ahead and STEREO-Behind - launched in 2006 into heliocentric orbits of 346 and 388 days respectively on an eight-year mission to completely map the Sun in 3D.
There you go - five manmade and sun-orbiting teapots for you. Ready to retract your assertion now? I'll wait. Ok so 5 objects...is that it?...I noticed you never mentioned a teapot so I guess we can rule that out. 
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
155
RE: Evidence Against God
April 21, 2012 at 12:01 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2012 at 12:04 am by Cyberman.)
My (lack of) god - you can not be this dense! First of all you assert that manmade objects cannot orbit the Sun. Now you complain that I only listed five that do? And what's the difference, on the fundamental level, between a spacecraft and a teapot? Both are manmade; both can exist in space; both can, or could, orbit the Sun... essentially everything you asserted cannot happen is right here on a plate for you. Ok, maybe a tea caddy for the pot. I appreciate, from your emoticon, that you may be being facetious here; but for feck's sake...
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 201
Threads: 0
Joined: April 16, 2012
Reputation:
0
RE: Evidence Against God
April 21, 2012 at 12:19 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2012 at 12:22 am by Abishalom.)
(April 21, 2012 at 12:01 am)Stimbo Wrote: My (lack of) god - you can not be this dense! First of all you assert that manmade objects cannot orbit the Sun. Now you complain that I only listed five that do? And what's the difference, on the fundamental level, between a spacecraft and a teapot? Both are manmade; both can exist in space; both can, or could, orbit the Sun... essentially everything you asserted cannot happen is right here on a plate for you. Ok, maybe a tea caddy for the pot. I appreciate, from your emoticon, that you may be being facetious here; but for feck's sake... Dude I was wrong about the man made object thing. A faulty premise does not necessarily equate to faulty conclusion. Anyway it was all just a joke (relax). Someone was asking about disproving an orbiting teapot around the sun and we both know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun (unless the government is lying to us). 
Posts: 1327
Threads: 37
Joined: January 15, 2012
Reputation:
15
RE: Evidence Against God
April 21, 2012 at 12:25 am
(April 21, 2012 at 12:19 am)Abishalom Wrote: ]Dude I was wrong about the man made object thing. A faulty premise does not necessarily equate to faulty conclusion. Anyway it was all just a joke (relax). Someone was asking about disproving an orbiting teapot around the sun and we both know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun (unless the government is lying to us).
And you really are too slow to equate that to someone saying there really is no god? Tell me, do you need a daily reminder to breath?
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
155
RE: Evidence Against God
April 21, 2012 at 12:34 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2012 at 12:34 am by Cyberman.)
Actually, I'm quite relaxed; though perhaps I was over-reacting slightly (and you're right, it was just a joke. Just.) On the flip side, you need to appreciate quite how frustrating these sorts of discussions can be. Banging one's head against the proverbial brick wall simply isn't in it.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 7388
Threads: 168
Joined: February 25, 2009
Reputation:
45
RE: Evidence Against God
April 21, 2012 at 1:09 am
Quote:A faulty premise does not necessarily equate to faulty conclusion .
Indeed;a faulty (untrue) premise can lead to a logically valid inference. However,that inference may not be claimed to be true. Logic 101: In logic, the premise is always assumed to be true for the sake of argument. All logical arguments begin " IF whatever, THEN---- "
A logical inference is necessarily true if and only if the premise has been proved to be true. Without such proof ,an inference may be incidentally but not necessarily true.
Posts: 198
Threads: 4
Joined: April 20, 2012
Reputation:
1
RE: Evidence Against God
April 21, 2012 at 1:19 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2012 at 1:23 am by simplexity.)
Unless God directly shows himself "naturally" to everyone in the entire world at once I will not believe. God could do this apparently and he knows what reasoning tools he gave us, right? So if he existed he would show himself naturally and not to random people as hallucinations throughout history. Otherwise, there is no reason for me to worry about it. Sorry, I am a naturally reasoning being and need some natural evidence.
And even if this did occur it does not mean I would like or Love this "God".
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: Evidence Against God
April 21, 2012 at 8:02 am
(This post was last modified: April 21, 2012 at 8:03 am by Ace Otana.)
(April 21, 2012 at 12:25 am)Phil Wrote: (April 21, 2012 at 12:19 am)Abishalom Wrote: ]Dude I was wrong about the man made object thing. A faulty premise does not necessarily equate to faulty conclusion. Anyway it was all just a joke (relax). Someone was asking about disproving an orbiting teapot around the sun and we both know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun (unless the government is lying to us).
And you really are too slow to equate that to someone saying there really is no god? Tell me, do you need a daily reminder to breath?
This is why I put the bugger on ignore.
Quote:Someone was asking about disproving an orbiting teapot around the sun and we both know that there is no teapot orbiting the sun
Quote:Someone was asking about disproving god and we both know that there is no god
Simply asserting to have knowledge that an object or being does not exist does not in anyway prove your assertion, stupid!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
|
