Disproving atheists in 82 seconds

Quote from Trader666:

Please. You admitted it only after I rubbed your nose in your BS.

As for not giving "creedence " [sic] to the idea that God did it, do you also "think" we're the most advanced life form in the universe and there's no chance that any such entity had anything to do it?
More...

OK, whatever, you "got' me. Are you happy now? The fact is is that I'm well aware of the possibility of transpermia. But the creation of life on earth does not need extraterrestrial inputs.

Your second sentence is fairly incomprehensible but I'll try to answer anyway.

I think it's likely that there are far more advanced/intelligent creatures than us out there, but they had nothing to do with life creation on earth and are certainly not God
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

I never said no possible evidence could exist. I gave it a shot. I just can't think of any. Apparently you can't either.
More...


I didn't ask you that.
I merely asked you to identify what would constitute evidence for you.
The fact that you cannot identify 1 event, circumstance, or discovery that would suffice as evidence (not proof mind you just evidence ) to satisfy you, just means you are: inept to come to a definitive conclusion.


Sure I have many ideas , tests or conditions which provide me with evidence but the question was" what would you consider as evidence".

The fact that you cannot conceive of anything or condition that meets your criteria is simply laughable when you state there is no evidence.

Lets see how that works shall we?
me: theory,All liberals are stupid
me :test hypothesis to disprove it, no I refuse to even ponder any
test that might prove me wrong
Me: There you have it no evidence that liberals are not stupid: so therefore without a doubt all liberals are stupid.

Works for me.
 
"It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

Ah, yes. Why everyone is on the multi-verse theory binge. It can't be proved unless we can find evidence of another universe interacting with ours. I think it is tantamount to speculation of what occurred before the big-bang. It is a convenient answer, though, if you are an atheist trying to explain why the fine tuning exists. I don't think we will ever know the answer to either question in this life.

Unless..... there have already been travelers between universes. It would explain why we can't find any radio evidence that ET exists.
 
No, your "logic" is incomprehensible because it's based on rabid atheism and you "thinking" you know things that you do not.

How do you "know" an advanced civilization had nothing to do with life on earth? You don't. Nor do scientists (even Dawkins has admitted it's possible). Nor did I claim it's anything other than a possibility, moron.

As for God... if you showed people from the distant past today's technology it would be indistinguishable from magic. An entity powerful and intelligent enough to have created the universe or even the life on earth would seem supernatural to us today, even if it was in fact as natural in the scheme of things as stars. So if such an entity did visit our distant ancestors, do you really think they would have described it any differently?

Your "certainty" only shows your ignorance and that you can't differentiate between fact and opinion.
Quote from futurecurrents:

OK, whatever, you "got' me. Are you happy now? The fact is is that I'm well aware of the possibility of transpermia. But the creation of life on earth does not need extraterrestrial inputs.

Your second sentence is fairly incomprehensible but I'll try to answer anyway.

I think it's likely that there are far more advanced/intelligent creatures than us out there, but they had nothing to do with life creation on earth and are certainly not God
More...
 
Quote from jem:

If you think that is out of context... then you should become educated on the subject.

Many of the top physicists and cosmologists are atheists... they admit the fine tunings but make conjectures to explain it away.

(note...even the scientists who are believers understand that are not doing science if they approach the subject with the answer being God did it. They still must ask how did it happen.)

Drl]
More...

Ok, let's see the rest of the video then. As it is it is useless.

And most scientists are atheists. I wonder why.

"71% of the National Academy of the Sciences is atheist while the general population of the USA is 3% atheist. And in places like the UK, the Royal Society is like 91% atheist. And for surveys on the "great" scientists, atheists are sitting on the 75% mark, way ahead of the 3% of the general world population. What could be the reason for this?
Sources:
A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%"

http://www.funadvice.com/q/atheists_vs_theists_in_terms_of_intelligence
 
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:

I didn't ask you that.
I merely asked you to identify what would constitute evidence for you.
The fact that you cannot identify 1 event, circumstance, or discovery that would suffice as evidence (not proof mind you just evidence ) to satisfy you, just means you are: inept to come to a definitive conclusion.


Sure I have many ideas , tests or conditions which provide me with evidence but the question was" what would you consider as evidence".

The fact that you cannot conceive of anything or condition that meets your criteria is simply laughable when you state there is no evidence.

Lets see how that works shall we?
me: theory,All liberals are stupid
me :test hypothesis to disprove it, no I refuse to even ponder any
test that might prove me wrong
Me: There you have it no evidence that liberals are not stupid: so therefore without a doubt all liberals are stupid.

Works for me.
More...

Like Brass said, the burden to provide evidence is on you. You're asking me to betray my intelligence by coming up with a reason for the impossible. I just can't do it. Maybe if I was ignorant and gullible, but I'm not.

If something really extraordinary happened or was seen I would more likely attribute it to an alien race than I would to "God".

BTW, your theory would be wrong as most educated intelligent people are liberals. That's why there are more in academia and the media.
 
Quote from Trader666:

No, your "logic" is incomprehensible because it's based on rabid atheism and you "thinking" you know things that you do not.

How do you "know" an advanced civilization had nothing to do with life on earth? You don't. Nor do scientists (even Dawkins has admitted it's possible). Nor did I claim it's anything other than a possibility, moron.

As for God... if you showed people from the distant past today's technology it would be indistinguishable from magic. An entity powerful and intelligent enough to have created the universe or even the life on earth would seem supernatural to us today, even if it was in fact as natural in the scheme of things as stars. So if such an entity did visit our distant ancestors, do you really think they would have described it any differently?

Your "certainty" only shows your ignorance and that you can't differentiate between fact and opinion.
More...

Yes it's also possible for all the molecules of air in a box to suddenly be in one corner. Do I have to say "highly probable" with every statement I make?
 
Any scientist who would state they know there is no God, is not a scientist.

I can believe a majority of scientists are agnostic. But that does not really matter. Wasn't it you who was against appeals to authority?

Who are the authorities and fine tunings... and what have they said in the last 10 years.

What the fuck could an et clown want... you got Hawking, Penrose, Dawkins, Ress... all saying the universe appears fine tuned.
Then those scientist make conjectures about a multiverse to explain it?

Don't you feel that viscerally? top minds say our Universe appears designed? Then to get around the conclusion they have to make conjectures about infinite other universes?





Quote from futurecurrents:

Ok, let's see the rest of the video then. As it is it is useless.

And most scientists are atheists. I wonder why.

"71% of the National Academy of the Sciences is atheist while the general population of the USA is 3% atheist. And in places like the UK, the Royal Society is like 91% atheist. And for surveys on the "great" scientists, atheists are sitting on the 75% mark, way ahead of the 3% of the general world population. What could be the reason for this?
Sources:
A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%"

http://www.funadvice.com/q/atheists_vs_theists_in_terms_of_intelligence
More...
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Like Brass said, the burden to provide evidence is on you. You're asking me to betray my intelligence by coming up with a reason for the impossible. I just can't do it. Maybe if I was ignorant and gullible, but I'm not.

If something really extraordinary happened or was seen I would more likely attribute it to an alien race than I would to "God".

BTW, your theory would be wrong as most educated intelligent people are liberals. That's why there are more in academia and the media.
More...
Sorry but you are the one that is using the following fallacy.
Burden Of Proof:
the claim that whatever has not yet been proved false must be true (or vice versa). Essentially the arguer claims that he should win by default if his opponent can't make a strong enough case.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#reductive

Have fun with your endless loop of arguments each group pretends their beliefs should be the others fact.
I'm probably done, I've seen, heard it all before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top