Anti-Atheist Bigotry: Atheists Are As Distrusted As Rapists

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: organofcorti on April 28, 2016, 07:47:29 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 02:11:42 PM

Quote from: Moloch on April 28, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 12:02:43 PM

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

You could simply link the source of your information so we can debunk it... like this guy:
http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2015/04/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old

Quote

So let’s accept ‘for the sake of the argument’ that (1) all causes produce their effects in conformity with the laws of nature, (2) laws require a lawmaker, and (3) only God could have made the laws of nature (leading to the conclusion that God exists)—and push this line of reasoning a little bit further. Clearly, if God made the laws of nature, then this happened, right? And if everything that happens conforms to the laws of nature, then God’s act of making the laws of nature must have conformed to the laws of nature too (because it’s something that happened). Now think about this for a moment and you’ll see how mind-twistingly weird it is. If it’s true that God’s act of making the laws of nature had to conform to the laws of nature, then the laws of nature had to exist before God made them! But that’s crazy, because nothing can exist before it existed.

None of us are stupid enough to believe that you created this, "3 laws prove God exists" idea on your own... you have never had an original idea, ever...

Please post the source of your misinformation... please?

Is it this article?
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106

Google "cause and effect" "complex universe" "entropy" to find all the info you need to combine to prove that God exists.

Ages ago, this was standard understanding until scientists started to desperately attempt to prove these things wrong. Since they haven't been able to do it, they start to lie by saying that theories are fact when they don't know it for certain.

Am I telling you that you have to research anything? Of course not. You don't even have to think for all I care.

Cool

"Complex universe" is not a thing. It's just something you've made up.

Since the universe is so simple for you, figure out by tomorrow how to let us all live to age 500, or 1000, and post the method here for us all to use.

Cool

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 02:11:42 PM

Quote from: Moloch on April 28, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 12:02:43 PM

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

You could simply link the source of your information so we can debunk it... like this guy:
http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2015/04/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old

Quote

So let’s accept ‘for the sake of the argument’ that (1) all causes produce their effects in conformity with the laws of nature, (2) laws require a lawmaker, and (3) only God could have made the laws of nature (leading to the conclusion that God exists)—and push this line of reasoning a little bit further. Clearly, if God made the laws of nature, then this happened, right? And if everything that happens conforms to the laws of nature, then God’s act of making the laws of nature must have conformed to the laws of nature too (because it’s something that happened). Now think about this for a moment and you’ll see how mind-twistingly weird it is. If it’s true that God’s act of making the laws of nature had to conform to the laws of nature, then the laws of nature had to exist before God made them! But that’s crazy, because nothing can exist before it existed.

None of us are stupid enough to believe that you created this, "3 laws prove God exists" idea on your own... you have never had an original idea, ever...

Please post the source of your misinformation... please?

Is it this article?
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106

Google "cause and effect" "complex universe" "entropy" to find all the info you need to combine to prove that God exists.

Ages ago, this was standard understanding until scientists started to desperately attempt to prove these things wrong. Since they haven't been able to do it, they start to lie by saying that theories are fact when they don't know it for certain.

Am I telling you that you have to research anything? Of course not. You don't even have to think for all I care.

Cool

"Complex universe" is not a thing. It's just something you've made up.

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 12:02:43 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 28, 2016, 10:46:49 AM

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 05:51:19 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 27, 2016, 10:19:10 PM

<>

In summary, you have no scientific or logical proof of god.

Of course what I said isn't proof. However, if one were to scientifically test the points that I speak about, he would find the proof.

Cool

Scientifically test what? How? Exactly what experiment can you perform to prove god exists ?

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

Cool

You have repeated the same words over and over, but you've never actually provided experimental proof of God. Newton's 3rd law states nothing about God. Entropy does not require a God.

Balthazar

legendary

Activity: 3108

Merit: 1359

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs7DO43OhfA

These bees don't care about proving the existence of God, because they're spending every day for protecting their God(ess). Cheesy

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: Moloch on April 28, 2016, 01:47:17 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 12:02:43 PM

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

You could simply link the source of your information so we can debunk it... like this guy:
http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2015/04/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old

Quote

So let’s accept ‘for the sake of the argument’ that (1) all causes produce their effects in conformity with the laws of nature, (2) laws require a lawmaker, and (3) only God could have made the laws of nature (leading to the conclusion that God exists)—and push this line of reasoning a little bit further. Clearly, if God made the laws of nature, then this happened, right? And if everything that happens conforms to the laws of nature, then God’s act of making the laws of nature must have conformed to the laws of nature too (because it’s something that happened). Now think about this for a moment and you’ll see how mind-twistingly weird it is. If it’s true that God’s act of making the laws of nature had to conform to the laws of nature, then the laws of nature had to exist before God made them! But that’s crazy, because nothing can exist before it existed.

None of us are stupid enough to believe that you created this, "3 laws prove God exists" idea on your own... you have never had an original idea, ever...

Please post the source of your misinformation... please?

Is it this article?
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106

Google "cause and effect" "complex universe" "entropy" to find all the info you need to combine to prove that God exists.

Ages ago, this was standard understanding until scientists started to desperately attempt to prove these things wrong. Since they haven't been able to do it, they start to lie by saying that theories are fact when they don't know it for certain.

Am I telling you that you have to research anything? Of course not. You don't even have to think for all I care.

Cool

Moloch

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 722

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 12:02:43 PM

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

You could simply link the source of your information so we can debunk it... like this guy:
http://philosophytalk.org/community/blog/david-livingstone-smith/2015/04/do-natural-laws-prove-god-exists-new-wrinkle-old

Quote

So let’s accept ‘for the sake of the argument’ that (1) all causes produce their effects in conformity with the laws of nature, (2) laws require a lawmaker, and (3) only God could have made the laws of nature (leading to the conclusion that God exists)—and push this line of reasoning a little bit further. Clearly, if God made the laws of nature, then this happened, right? And if everything that happens conforms to the laws of nature, then God’s act of making the laws of nature must have conformed to the laws of nature too (because it’s something that happened). Now think about this for a moment and you’ll see how mind-twistingly weird it is. If it’s true that God’s act of making the laws of nature had to conform to the laws of nature, then the laws of nature had to exist before God made them! But that’s crazy, because nothing can exist before it existed.

None of us are stupid enough to believe that you created this, "3 laws prove God exists" idea on your own... you have never had an original idea, ever...

Please post the source of your misinformation... please?

Is it this article?
http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2106

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: organofcorti on April 28, 2016, 10:46:49 AM

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 05:51:19 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 27, 2016, 10:19:10 PM

<>

In summary, you have no scientific or logical proof of god.

Of course what I said isn't proof. However, if one were to scientifically test the points that I speak about, he would find the proof.

Cool

Scientifically test what? How? Exactly what experiment can you perform to prove god exists ?

You are going to have to use your brain on this one a little. After all, I have repeated it over and over.

Isaac Newton formulated his 3rd Law. Before he formulated it, there were others who thought about it, and dismissed it because they thought it was too basic to need formulation as a law. Cause and effect is upheld by Newton's 3rd Law.

Now all you need is to understand that the universe is complex, be it from a scientific standpoint or not, and that universal entropy exists. Once you understand these things, you can combine them to find that God exists. If He didn't, at least one of these 3 (laws?) wouldn't exist.

The writeup of the proof would probably be more than Bitcointalk allows in a post. But, maybe not.

Cool

organofcorti

donator

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1007

Poor impulse control.

Quote from: BADecker on April 28, 2016, 05:51:19 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 27, 2016, 10:19:10 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 27, 2016, 11:05:59 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 27, 2016, 07:25:02 AM

Quote from: BADecker on April 26, 2016, 07:01:31 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 26, 2016, 06:11:13 PM

Quote from: BADecker on April 26, 2016, 11:26:36 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 26, 2016, 05:07:53 AM

Quote from: BADecker on April 25, 2016, 01:11:35 PM

Quote from: organofcorti on April 25, 2016, 07:58:59 AM

Quote from: mOgliE on April 25, 2016, 07:52:25 AM

Funny.
Badecker is still there with his "proofs"?

Why are you still replying? ^^
If badecker even cared for logic or real argument he would agree to list his arguments in an ordered and precise way so we can refute them one by one.
As he prefers to just give vague un unreliable explanations without ever defining his terms or context, he's probably even aware that it's nothing but wind.

SO you can't convince him, cause convincing need the other one to think in a , if not perfectly logical, at least reasonnable reliable way.

It's good practice. Of course I won't convince BADecker but it's an interesting task to unravel the tangled logic that he/she produces, and it's a difficult process to argue against since BADecker is usually not starting from a foundation of logic or knowledge.

It doesn't matter how I explain the proof that science gives for the existence of God. You simply aren't interested in hearing it, or in thinking it through. You both are stuck in your atheism religion, and you like it that way. If you weren't stuck, or didn't like it, you would go out and examine science and nature to see that God really does exist.

The other idea is that you know that God exists, and are simply fighting Him.

Cool

You haven't given any scientific proof. Name one piece of scientific evidence you have to support your theory. Name one experiment you've performed to obtain said evidence.

You have neither, so you have no 'scientific proof'.

That isn't my job or goal. I have given you all the info you need to go and look at the proof where it exists.

See the freedom I have given you? I have given you the freedom to stay ignorant, or to inform yourself. Looks like you would rather stay ignorant.

Cool

It might not be your "job or goal" to make such claims about a "scientific proof of god", but you sure do seem to make that claim a lot. Are you backing away from your "scientific proof of god" claim now?

So far, that I am aware of, I don't have a "scientific proof of God" claim. So, there is nothing for me to back away from. However, if you would like to see the scientific proof for God, simply research the info that I have made available many times, about cause and effect, complex universe, and universal entropy.

Cool

You claim to not have a scientific proof of god anymore?

Did you realise you were wrong, or have you changed your mind about needing a scientific proof of god?

You seem to be hung up on the idea that I have some claim regarding scientific proof that God exists. Yet you won't tell us what you think my claim is. Because of this it is very difficult to even know what you are talking about.

Science itself has the proof that God exists. There are at least two ways that Science proves this.

1. Cause and effect combined with complex universe combined with universal entropy, is one of the ways that science proves that God exists.

2. The fact that nature acts like a big, complex machine proves God. Why? Because all of our machines have machine-makers. We have no experience of any of our machines that have come about spontaneously, without a machine maker. Since the machine universe is as complex as it is, Whoever made it fits our definition of the word "God."

Cool

That is not a scientific proof, as you well know. It's just armchair philosophy, and illogical at that.

Firstly, the first statement is nonsensical, since "complex universe" is a term you made up and have yet to explain.

The second statement is just the fallacious "Watchmaker analogy".

Hume's reply to this (several hundred years ago) was:
1. We have no experience with world-building, so how can you know that a godless world (or universe) would appear any different?
2. Machines and nature are not similar enough to for one to draw an analogy
3. Even if there is a 'designer' this is not proof of an omnipotent and personal god.

This has been addressed and answered many times in the hundreds of years since, so I'm not sure why you think it could possibly be a useful argument in favour of God.

In summary, you have no scientific or logical proof of god.