Ex-Hawaii official denounces 'ludicrous' birther claims.
- Thread starter Free Thinker
- Start date
Now you deny fine tunings.
You are becoming the Pope Urban of Atheism.
Take it up with science... see this review of Hawkings new book. Now I am not saying Hawking does not create conjectures to explain the fine tunings... but to deny fine tunings is to be a fool. ....
"In the penultimate chapter, Hawking talks about fine-tuning. Our universe is fine-tuned for life, in the sense that if any number of delicate parameters, or physical laws, were tweaked, the conditions for making life as we know it possible would be removed. As Hawking explains, the weak anthropic principle states that we must observe a universe whose properties are consistent with our existence, for otherwise we would not exist to observe anything at all.
Why is the universe fine-tuned? Itâs because there are so many of them, Hawking says. With ten to the power of five hundred universes floating about, each with its own different physical laws, itâs unsurprising that at least one of them â our own â would randomly and contingently just happen to take the parameters making life possible.
The fine-tuning of our universe, as Hawking explains, has often been invoked as a theistic argument. The idea is that since it is outlandishly unlikely that all the free parameters would randomly fall in just the right pattern to assure the possibility of life, it is much more parsimonious to assume that a designer, presumably God, endowed the parameters with the values that they have, so that life would arise. The multiverse idea presumably puts paid to this notion. Given enough universes, sooner or later one of them is bound, by chance alone, to take life-permitting values.
There is a thick literature on the fine-tuning issue and various versions of the multiverse. Iâll just mention in passing that some people who have studied these topics contend that the existence of a multiverse does not, in fact, account for the fine-tuning of our universe. The reason for this, I take it, is that the probabilities of each universe having the values that they do are independent of one another, and hence once cannot say that just because a billion universes will not support life, itâs somehow more likely that the next universe in line will support it. If the odds are, say, a billion to one against any particular universe having life-supporting parameters, then those odds remain the same for each universe no matter how many other universes exist. "
http://www.galilean-library.org/sit...iews/the-grand-design-by-stephen-hawking-r124
.
You have the capacity to believe in God. You make a decision not to believe in God. You therefore, since you don't have knowledge of God not actually existing, you hold a belief, practice a faith.
So now, no faith is a faith and not practicing faith is practicing faith. In your weird world someone not practcing law must mean they are practicing law. Are you even aware of how farcical you sound.
Anyone who believes either they or other people practice things like f law when they actually are not, do not, and cannot, is either known as an idiot, or a jem.
God, by definition is beyond the human senses...as senses are limited instruments.
Totally absurd and self-defeating.
How strange it is that human senses are adequate after all to define God as beyond the human senses.
With limited human senses being inadequate , what sort of in-human senses would you need to define god that way?
You really never have thought that through.
Obviously, saying the most ludicrously preposterous things as possible is what it takes to have faith in a God.
What is really wacky about your position is you take a position that God must necessarily conform to your criteria of a proof, which means you are practicing a belief that God must necessarily conform to your criteria of proof for God to exist, a logically fallacy of assuming the antecedent, so that you can then claim God doesn't exist because God doesn't your criteria for a proof.
Wacky, yes you are wacky alright.
The only reason to have faith in God according to you is because there are no reasons.
There is supposed to be nothing, including any available human senses to even evaluate with, so it's only blind ignorant faith on a non chance all because of limited human senses.
On the other hand, unlimited non-sense for God existence is unbounded.
So well done, you've defined God as completely irrelevant. That much you certainly have gotten right.
Of course tt doesn't even get to needing proof of no God. Dreaming up supremely nonsensical arguments that hold no water is not reason to practice any faith or belief whatsoever in your daft ideas in the first place.
So now, no faith is a faith and not practicing faith is practicing faith. In your weird world someone not practcing law must mean they are practicing law. Are you even aware of how farcical you sound.
Anyone who believes either they or other people practice things like f law when they actually are not, do not, and cannot, is either known as an idiot, or a jem.
God, by definition is beyond the human senses...as senses are limited instruments.
Totally absurd and self-defeating.
How strange it is that human senses are adequate after all to define God as beyond the human senses.
With limited human senses being inadequate , what sort of in-human senses would you need to define god that way?
You really never have thought that through.
Obviously, saying the most ludicrously preposterous things as possible is what it takes to have faith in a God.
What is really wacky about your position is you take a position that God must necessarily conform to your criteria of a proof, which means you are practicing a belief that God must necessarily conform to your criteria of proof for God to exist, a logically fallacy of assuming the antecedent, so that you can then claim God doesn't exist because God doesn't your criteria for a proof.
Wacky, yes you are wacky alright.
The only reason to have faith in God according to you is because there are no reasons.
There is supposed to be nothing, including any available human senses to even evaluate with, so it's only blind ignorant faith on a non chance all because of limited human senses.
On the other hand, unlimited non-sense for God existence is unbounded.
So well done, you've defined God as completely irrelevant. That much you certainly have gotten right.
Of course tt doesn't even get to needing proof of no God. Dreaming up supremely nonsensical arguments that hold no water is not reason to practice any faith or belief whatsoever in your daft ideas in the first place.
You have the capacity to believe in God. You make a decision not to believe in God. You therefore, since you don't have knowledge of God not actually existing, you hold a belief, practice a faith.
So now, no faith is a faith and not practicing faith is practicing faith. In your weird world someone not practcing law must mean they are practicing law. Are you even aware of how farcical you sound.
A turnip, having no capacity for faith, has no faith.
A human being with a fully developed mind, has the capacity for faith, and decides to hold a faith that there is no God.
Since you use the word God, there is an assumption that you have a concept of God that you decide to hold as true or false, fully or partially. That holding as either true or false, is an act of faith...not an act of knowing or not knowing.
Anyone who believes either they or other people practice things like f law when they actually are not, do not, and cannot, is either known as an idiot, or a jem.
Anyone who makes a decision to hold belief in God, or hold non belief in God, is practicing faith. That's what to believe is.
It doesn't matter what the object of faith is, God or non God, the process is the same.
God, by definition is beyond the human senses...as senses are limited instruments.
Totally absurd and self-defeating.
Your response is absurd and self-defeating.
See how easy it is to sling?
How strange it is that human senses are adequate after all to define God as beyond the human senses.
With limited human senses being inadequate , what sort of in-human senses would you need to define god that way?
You really never have thought that through.
Human senses have never see, felt, touched, smelled, hear, or tasted nuclear energy.
Lots of things are beyond our senses.
Obviously, saying the most ludicrously preposterous things as possible is what it takes to have faith in a God.
['B]
Obviously you saying the most ludicrously preposterous things as possible is what it takes to have faith in non God.
What is really wacky about your position is you take a position that God must necessarily conform to your criteria of a proof, which means you are practicing a belief that God must necessarily conform to your criteria of proof for God to exist, a logically fallacy of assuming the antecedent, so that you can then claim God doesn't exist because God doesn't your criteria for a proof.
Wacky, yes you are wacky alright.
Wacky, yes you are wacky alright.
The only reason to have faith in God according to you is because there are no reasons.
The only reason to have faith in non God according to you is because there are no reasons.
There is supposed to be nothing, including any available human senses to even evaluate with, so it's only blind ignorant faith on a non chance all because of limited human senses.
If all of your senses ceased to function, the mind and thought would still exist, proving that senses are just a conduit to the mind.
On the other hand, unlimited non-sense for God existence is unbounded.
On the other hand, unlimited non-sense for non God is unbounded.
So well done
Yes, you are finally starting to see the light.
Of course tt doesn't even get to needing proof of no God.
Without proof of God, there can be no proof of non God. Talk about nonsense. "I am going to non something that can't be proved, and that makes a proof of the non something."
Laughable.
Dreaming up supremely nonsensical arguments that hold no water is not reason to practice any faith or belief whatsoever in your daft ideas in the first place.
Dreaming up supremely nonsensical arguments that hold no water is not reason to practice any faith or belief whatsoever in your daft ideas in the first place.
Actually, anytime you want to make a legitimate counter argument, or demonstrate where an opposing argument fails...please do so.
Unless you like the shit you spew spewed right back atcha...
Hilarious, watching the so called "sensible, critically thinking, rational, intellectual" atheists resort to gutter tripe...
I like that almost all the Donald threads became religious debates. 
I personally find it offensive that Opt777 is referring to my Gods as singular, indicating there is only one. As we all know, the only true Gods are the Greek ones, and they are as real as the common sense of believers.
So stop saying "god" because you are offending the Pantheon. And you don't want to be on a boat when Poseidon gets angry.
You have been kindly warned...
I personally find it offensive that Opt777 is referring to my Gods as singular, indicating there is only one. As we all know, the only true Gods are the Greek ones, and they are as real as the common sense of believers.
So stop saying "god" because you are offending the Pantheon. And you don't want to be on a boat when Poseidon gets angry.
You have been kindly warned...
A human being with a fully developed mind, has the capacity for faith, and decides to hold a faith that there is no God.
Anyone who makes a decision to hold belief in God, or hold non belief in God, is practicing faith. That's what to believe is.
Holding no faith for one thing , does not require holding faith for another thing.
Since you use the word God, there is an assumption that you have a concept of God that you decide to hold as true or false, fully or partially. That holding as either true or false, is an act of faith...not an act of knowing or not knowing.
It's just a word. Your assumptions as usual are unfounded.
It is the attributes you attach to the word God that don't make any sense and sound completely absurd. So it doesn't even make it to true or false.
But your reasons why it should be true are invariably false, thus the need for faith in any act of knowing. Nothing to do with not knowing. No faith required in that regard.
Human senses have never see, felt, touched, smelled, hear, or tasted nuclear energy.
Tell that to the victims of Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
Laughable.
Yes, you are that. Now there's something I have good reason to believe is true.
A human being with a fully developed mind, has the capacity for faith, and decides to hold a faith that there is no God.
Anyone who makes a decision to hold belief in God, or hold non belief in God, is practicing faith. That's what to believe is.
Holding no faith for one thing , does not require holding faith for another thing.
If you were actually holding no faith, you would be an agnostic. That's not the case. You are a fire and brimstone atheist, holding a belief that God does not exist, that people who speak about God are beneath you, etc.
I've met atheists before, people who didn't have the kind of childhood wounding that you obviously suffer from when it comes to faith in God. If someone tells them they believe in God, they simply say, "I tried it, didn't work for me, but best of luck to you." No charge, no animosity, no intent to make them wrong, or disparage them.
They are not workout out some great disappointment or childhood wound, so they are very neutral on the topic of God. Whatever works for someone is cool in their mind, they don't mind at all what people think.
They we have personalities like you and others, who have a mission to attempt to smear and besmirch faith, have a need to show theists that theism is wrong.
It would be much more honest if you came forth and told the world why you are personally so anti God. The trauma is obvious, so why not share it? It might help you in your recovery and a path to acceptance of God working for some, but not for you.
Since you use the word God, there is an assumption that you have a concept of God that you decide to hold as true or false, fully or partially. That holding as either true or false, is an act of faith...not an act of knowing or not knowing.
It's just a word. Your assumptions as usual are unfounded.
You are using just words, and your assumptions that my ideas are unfounded.
It is the attributes you attach to the word God that don't make any sense and sound completely absurd. So it doesn't even make it to true or false.
Assuming you are not so self righteous to think you are the king of what makes sense, the word God does make sense to many people. It might not make sense to you, for a variety of reasons, but since you fail to make an argument that your notion of God having to be material in nature such that the material senses, material logic, and material thought would be able to discover God is just your own opinions, and carry no greater weight that any other opinions.
Is is logically possible that you just don't get the concept of God, due to your own limitations and preconditions?
But your reasons why it should be true are invariably false, thus the need for faith in any act of knowing. Nothing to do with not knowing. No faith required in that regard.
You have never shown my reasons to be false. You blather and go on rages when my point of view differs from yours, but you don't demonstrate that my position is false.
Human senses have never see, felt, touched, smelled, hear, or tasted nuclear energy.
Tell that to the victims of Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
The victims of Chernobyl or Hiroshima or Nagasaki suffered from something they could not sense, i.e. radiation. Heat, wind, can be felt. Radiation...nope. Beyond our senses. No human being has ever seen gamma rays, no human hears what a dog hears, so the senses of humans are limited to a range.
Science uses tools beyond the senses. No one has seen an atom actually split. They have seen the consequences...so they use inference. People see smoke, but not the fire, and yet they conclude fire when they see smoke.
God is beyond your senses, so demanding God to present himself so that you can see, touch, taste, smell, and hear God is silly.
God cannot be known with the intellect, because the intellect is limited.
A young child cannot know the mind of a parent. The child is confused at what the parent says and does.
Yet a child can love an parent, and unify with the parent on the level of love, and know the parent through love...something that is not sensory.
Laughable.
Yes, you are.
Yes, you are that.
Yes, you are that. +1 of course.
Now there's something I have good reason to believe is true.
Just another thing for you to practice faith in, just like your faith of non God.