How to make an Atheists head explode.

[FeenixRizin]

Quote from stu:

You're done alright and if you've exploded a myth, it happened in your own head dude. You're going to damage yourself like that.
I always thought you had no point. and no argument to defend.

You've made up a series of questionable statements which even if taken as what you describe "Givens" , do not hold up any sort of reasoning for intelligent design or against Evolution.

It is clear you cannot get over the problem for your nonsensical idea that design must and can only be intelligent.

And the utter irony!! A ripple in a puddle doesn't look designed? So how exactly did it get its design?
Did your "Intelligent Designer" not design its design?

Another Fail.

despite what you've been told, you're not at all bright

( i can match insults with the best of them... and you my friend, aren't near the best of them)

 

[stu]

Quote from FeenixRizin:

despite what you've been told, you're not at all bright

( i can match insults with the best of them... and you my friend, aren't near the best of them)

But you can't match an argument to reason - Freezin, and that's what's not very bright.

 

[stu]

Quote from nitro:

I assume too much. When I say the same thing to my physics/mathematician friends, they understand exactly what I mean.

The point is sort of this. We can take the equations of motion etc for say a proton. We can then model those on a computer and to extraordinary accuracy tell what happens. Therefore,
and perhaps incorrectly, we assume that the proton is doing some sort of "computation" itself to know where it should be, how much it should bend in the presence of a charge, etc. Is it
actually "computing" differential equations to know what to do next? Most probably not. But to take the small leap that the proton is running "some sort" of algorithm (we call them laws of
physics, but if computers were invented before physics, we might call them algorithms) when it is interacting with the electromagnetic field is probably ok. Hence, my assertion.

Like I said nitro, and you are confirming here, that you're projecting programming onto something that does not need nor show any programming.
Perhaps your physics and mathematical friends can explain to me what they understand you mean . Because you are not substantiating anything you are saying .
The inevitability of a Proton happens because of the three fundamental particles in its composition. There are no signs of programming or need for any in that composition

Quote from nitro:

Again, I was too mysterious in what I meant. What I mean is that once you introduce physics into any system, you can hardly call that system, "nothing". To me that is like saying, well that
guy is completely mad, so let's try to reason with him.

I don't think anyone in physics as far as I am aware is suggesting any of that. Certainly not in the excellent video which loik linked. Krauss tackled head on and explained himself about the ordinary understanding of "nothing" and what it now is meaning to physics.
It seems to me you are saying ( paraphrasing) "well that guy is completely mad, so let's not try to even understand what science is saying"

Quote from nitro:

And yet once again, my meaning is not clear. What I mean is this. These guys start with the assumption that there is nothing. Next thing you know, there are virtual particles, not quite
nothing, but probably as close as you can get. Ok, fine, I can bend a little. But wait, there is more. Not only are these virtual particles, these are identical particles as their long lived
versions, except they live for an imaginably small amount of time. This is where I lose it. This is no longer "nothing". [There are strong philosophical arguments that one cannot
comprehend nothing, since the very act of thinking about nothing no longer makes it nothing. Think about it]

Ok I thought about it.

Which are you going to do, the philosophical or the science.? Mixing them can only serve to confuse.

Quote from nitro:

My point is that I can accept that the universe can spring into existence through a quantum fluctuation from "nothing." Just leave the quotes around nothing, and I am ok. To me, this is no
explanation. It is a pull the rabbit out of the hat and hope they don't notice that "nothing" is not nothing.

So are you happy to conclude that physics won't explain any of this because you cannot reconcile the philosophical meaning of a word?

Quote from nitro:

It is imperative to understand that to me, the universe is some sort of computer, one closer to the Holodeck on Star Trek NG than our current computers, and probably 100 quintillion
times more complicated than that. A universe without some sort of designer ("GOD"), it is as if, you went and bought an Apple Macintosh (analogously, the universe) and miraculously
MacOS X (analogously , the laws of physics) spontaneously without any programmer writting the operating system, emerged on its hard disk and now you can run programs on the
computer. Without the operating system, the computer may as well be a paper weight.

It's nothing like that. Isn’t it the case that you cannot get your head around a philosophical argument so you're suggesting another philosophical argument (God) is an answer.
If your argument is the Universe needs programming even though there is no need, then so does your God need programming. It would need more complicated programming. The God that prgrammed your God would require even more complex programming than that. Infinite regress.
A very inelegant resolution.

And all the time physics is finding out more and more about what that "nothing" really is, while you merely consider it "mad".

Anyway, thanks for elucidating your position. I trust I understand what you mean.

 

[FeenixRizin]

Quote from stu:

But you can't match an argument to reason - Freezin, and that's what's not very bright.

what the hell does that mean?


OK, ILL BOIL IT DOWN TO THIS:


DO DAWKINS STATEMENTS MAKE ANY SENSE? ANSWER THE GOD DAMN QUESTION... THATS ALL I ASK

 

[stu]

Quote from FeenixRizin:

what the hell does that mean?


OK, ILL BOIL IT DOWN TO THIS:


DO DAWKINS STATEMENTS MAKE ANY SENSE? ANSWER THE GOD DAMN QUESTION... THATS ALL I ASK

Why are you so angry about this? There's no need to shout.
Even if those are Dawkins statements and even if they were made in that order (which I very much doubt), they would make sense and I have provided argument as to why they do.

You on the other hand are just jumping up and down, going round in circles with no rebuttals other than ignoring my answer, then repeating the same stuff over, making insults and just stating I'm wrong.

What is it with you religious geeks.?
Just don't be sick on the carpet.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from stu:

Like I said nitro, and you are confirming here, that you're projecting programming onto something that does not need nor show any programming.
Perhaps your physics and mathematical friends can explain to me what they understand you mean . Because you are not substantiating anything you are saying .
The inevitability of a Proton happens because of the three fundamental particles in its composition. There are no signs of programming or need for any in that composition



I don't think anyone in physics as far as I am aware is suggesting any of that. Certainly not in the excellent video which loik linked. Krauss tackled head on and explained himself about the ordinary understanding of "nothing" and what it now is meaning to physics.
It seems to me you are saying ( paraphrasing) "well that guy is completely mad, so let's not try to even understand what science is saying"



Ok I thought about it.

Which are you going to do, the philosophical or the science.? Mixing them can only serve to confuse.




So are you happy to conclude that physics won't explain any of this because you cannot reconcile the philosophical meaning of a word?




It's nothing like that. Isn’t it the case that you cannot get your head around a philosophical argument so you're suggesting another philosophical argument (God) is an answer.
If your argument is the Universe needs programming even though there is no need, then so does your God need programming. It would need more complicated programming. The God that prgrammed your God would require even more complex programming than that. Infinite regress.
A very inelegant resolution.

And all the time physics is finding out more and more about what that "nothing" really is, while you merely consider it "mad".

Anyway, thanks for elucidating your position. I trust I understand what you mean.

I have to agree you seem to mixing your metaphors nitro. make up your mind shall it be science or waxing philosophic

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from stu:

Why are you so angry about this? There's no need to shout.
Even if those are Dawkins statements and even if they were made in that order (which I very much doubt), they would make sense and I have provided argument as to why they do.

You on the other hand are just jumping up and down, going round in circles with no rebuttals other than ignoring my answer, then repeating the same stuff over, making insults and just stating I'm wrong.

What is it with you religious geeks.?
Just don't be sick on the carpet.

i get my preachin on Sunday, and everyone shouts PRAISE DA LAWD!

 

[killthesunshine]

the creationists heads are IMPLODING! from the VACUUM! LOL

 

[wilburbear]

Science shows that the universe was created, and therefore must have had a creator.

But beyond that, science is pretty much worthless because it has nothing to say about the most important topic of all - God.

 

[loik]

Quote from wilburbear:

Science shows that the universe was created, and therefore must have had a creator.

But beyond that, science is pretty much worthless because it has nothing to say about the most important topic of all - God.

What/who is God? Forces of nature? A man in the sky?