One of the stupidest fucking replies ever.

[Creed of Heresy]

...It amuses me to no end at all that I title this thread "One of the stupidest fucking replies ever" and now Akincana Krishna dasa's replies have taken up the mantle. I would jump in but I know absolutely nothing about the Vegas [unless you mean New Vegas, and nobody is allowed to talk about what happens there, so...], though from what I have read in the last couple days on the subject, I am only not impressed, I am rather scornful.

---

Present the source of everything - then science could be taken seriously as a way to know about God, or the absence of God. Otherwise, why insist science has anything to say on the subject at all?

Uhm. No. You don't get how this works. See, you don't get to make up a claim, and then demand that others prove or disprove it. That is not rational, because if everyone followed that sort of thinking, nobody would ever question anything and we would just believe whatever we were told because, hey, if someone claims something, it MUST be fact! That is what you are essentially arguing, that claim = fact and science must subject itself to a LOWER standard, one wherein it must take claims without evidence seriously.

You have no proof of your god. Nobody has any proof of their gods. They never have, they never will. Gods have always been used as an excuse to explain the unexplainable. Every millenia has seen us understanding more and more what was once attributed to gods and deities. Now just because you push the goalpost towards what YOU think is "ultimate knowledge," in this case the creation of the universe, you think you've won but, and I hate to tell you this, science has already begun working on hypotheses to show how the universe itself was created. You should start thinking less about that goalpost and instead push it further back into the realm of the omniverse/multiverse. After all, you don't want to get caught with your goal post already having been scored on by those devious forces of logic and reason!



Every time someone of fanatical faith speaks, my conviction in being an atheist and an antitheist grows a bit stronger.

[Darkstar]

After all, you don't want to get caught with your goal post already having been scored on by those devious forces of logic and reason!

Yeaaaah...

---

---

I cannot begin to comprehend how oblivious you would have to be to not realize how explicitly stating such intentions is a bad idea. (Of course, they must not use reason, so...)

Every time someone of fanatical faith speaks, my conviction in being an atheist and an antitheist grows a bit stronger.

Same.

[Jackalope]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.

[Creed of Heresy]

Ok, I know I said I was done but I had to kick him one last time.

Him:

Who created the creator? When you ask this question you are implying that I believe in a created God. Which you now understand I don't. Also, When you asked this question you're trying to figure out God. If you could figure out God, there be no point for God, now what there?
Don't worry, I'm not Going to argue that. But basically, I have an answer to my question yet your question still remains unanswerable. Yet you still believe in this. So you believe in something you can answer, That means you have faith in the subject. If you don't have faith in the subject, that means that there is a flaw in your Theory. Which ridicules it to Harassment, but don't worry, I'm not going to attack you like that either.

Me:

Actually you haven't given any answers, and in fact you've ducked my rebuttals. Vagueries, circular logic, and now a strawman in the form of faith being necessary when it is anything but. I cannot say I am surprised, since I cannot hope to having any kind of reasonable debate with someone who argues in favor of something that is neither provable nor disprovable and who also considers that a crux of understanding when it is nothing more than a tool of ignorance.

Maybe, just maybe, one day, you will begin to understand why, as civilization, technology, and learning has progressed, the strength and conviction of faith has fallen, while the dissemination of knowledge has risen up to take its place.

But I won't hold my breath.

Him [clearly not understanding the dismissive tone of my message]:

Great answer to the question. Ik you would never admit that you were wrong.

See...Never...ever...EVER accuse me of not answering something when I was never asked something. It'll piss me off. Somehow I retained my calm, however...something I am quite proud of, in fact.

My response:

What question? You never posed a question in your last message, unless of course you are referring to your question on evolution, in which case, I already answered it: With a petri dish, a culture of cellular matter, and a microscope. I did it in high school, for fuck's sake. Or do you refer to abiogenesis, in which inorganic matter becomes organic matter, from whence all life ultimately originates? Well, first of all, that has nothing to do with evolution, since abiogenesis explains the creation of life and evolutionary theory explains how it changes once it has started. Dr. Jack Szostak has already proven that it can happen and he has demonstrated as such in a controlled environment based upon the Miller-Urey Experiment, thus proving the concept of organic matter [life] coming from inorganic matter [not life] as more than possible: it actually can happen.

This is in direct contrast to your bland "goddidit." The evidence and the findings and the proof all rest with my side. Your side has nothing, explains nothing, provides nothing. That is why it is dying a slow, miserable, prolonged death, why atheism is rising and church-attendance is dropping all across the educated, developed world. You and your kind can live in the dark if you'd like it, of course; this is the US, you are free to your opinion. Just don't expect anyone with any eye for fact and reason to actually ever take you seriously, is all.

That last part was perhaps a bit of a personal dig at him and his beliefs but honestly his ignorance and his arrogance piqued my ire. That I controlled it that well is a step in the right direction for me.

Now, if I can just manage total restraint. One step at a time...

[Angrboda]

I have one last question for akincana.


If God created the universe out of nothing, who created God out of nothing?

[Darkstar]

I have one last question for akincana.


If God created the universe out of nothing, who created God out of nothing?

[Poe mode activated]

Nothing. God just exists because he is necessarily necessary. The universe, however, despite being infinitely less amazing than God's glory, cannot. The universe is dumb nature, how can it create itself? God doesn't need a beginning, He exists outside of space and time and doesn't follow the rule of cause and effect! God made the whole universe and you can't understand His glory, so why do you even bother? Everything must have a cause, so the universe does too. Something can't come from nothing so God must have created it.

[Poe mode deactivated]


Notice how he contradicts himself, and provides no reasoning as to why god can 'just exist' when the universe cannot, not to mention that if something can't come from nothing, how could god have created something from nothing? Therefore there must be exceptions to the rule either way, unless the singularity was effectively eternal prior to the big bang, or at least the matter that composed it. Now let's see how the actual response compares with my poe.

[Angrboda]

Well, I actually want to hear him or her say it, so that I know they are engaged in special pleading. You, however, appear stuck on the notion of a singularity, which isn't necessarily the case. This is not the only explanation. (Hawking makes the point that once the universe was less than the Planck length, the laws of physics simply do not apply. How this differs from a singularity, I'm not sure. Then there's Penrose's CCC model. Among others.)