Oops. Why God Did Not Create the Universe

[Gabfly1]

Quote from JoePaterno:

The concept of santa clause bringing gifts is rather easily unproven, to anyone who can count the number of presents purchased vs. the new ones that appeared overnight. It is rather tiring to see people wander into a discussion with a mindless post like yours...

Alright, then how about Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot?

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from JoePaterno:

The concept of santa clause bringing gifts is rather easily unproven, to anyone who can count the number of presents purchased vs. the new ones that appeared overnight. It is rather tiring to see people wander into a discussion with a mindless post like yours.

Now try something worthy of a reply. Either:

-- effectively prove that the Universe HAS a designer

-- effectively prove that the Universe HAS NO a designer

the concept of a loving god is rather easily unproven by comparing the human suffering with the claim of a caring all powerful deity.

it gets rather tiring to see people using lack of evidence for something as evidence that something supernatural exists to bolster their superstitious beliefs.

"Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative?"

 

[Trader666]

You haven't "unproven" shit.

It's also tiring to see people confusing theory with "proof" and asserting that it "disproves" that which it does not.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2945655#post2945655

Quote from Free Thinker:

the concept of a loving god is rather easily unproven by comparing the human suffering with the claim of a caring all powerful deity.

it gets rather tiring to see people using lack of evidence for something as evidence that something supernatural exists to bolster their superstitious beliefs.

Did you get that from Jack Hershey? Sure you can:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

Quote from Free Thinker:

"Can you imagine the ignorance level of someone who asks you to provide a formal proof for a negative?"

 

[jem]

Quote from Kassz007:

I didn't say scientists don't hope they conclude. I said atheists don't hope, they come to the best conclusion given the facts available.

You were stereotyping all atheists as hoping that the god theory is disproven. I disagree. I don't hope one way or the other, I simply see what I see (or don't see, in this case).

I mistook who your "we" was applying to.
My mistake. Sorry.
But now it is you reading things into my comments which do not exist.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Do yourself a favor. Don't be such a jerk for once, go back and read what he actually said .

Why don't you go back and read all your pages of mistakes about the universe appearing designed.

Your misunderstanding of Susskind and Science.

Why don't you explain how it is Hawking says our universe looks extremely designed but you have been spending years telling us it does not.

Why don't you go back an lay out your goofy arguments.

 

[Gabfly1]

Still no retort to my earlier reference to Russell's Celestial Teapot.

Let's try it again, shall we?

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Why don't you go back and read all your pages of mistakes about the universe appearing designed.

Your misunderstanding of Susskind and Science.

Why don't you explain how it is Hawking says our universe looks extremely designed but you have been spending years telling us it does not.

Why don't you go back an lay out your goofy arguments.

ok, I checked . The only mistakes are yours.

Both Hawking and Susskind say quite clearly; ....' looks designed but it ain't.'

So what's the deal with this that makes you act like such a jerk all the time jem-judicata?

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

ok, I checked . The only mistakes are yours.

Both Hawking and Susskind say quite clearly; ....' looks designed but it ain't.'

So what's the deal with this that makes you act like such a jerk all the time jem-judicata?

Thats right Stu, our universe (the only one we know exists) looks designed.

You have been saying for years it does not look designed.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Thats right Stu, our universe (the only one we know exists) looks designed.

You have been saying for years it does not look designed.

To you, it obviously L@@KS LIKE I was saying that.

Non irrational religious bigots haven't had that problem with comprehension.

 

[Kassz007]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Still no retort to my earlier reference to Russell's Celestial Teapot.

Let's try it again, shall we?

In an article titled "Is There a God?" commissioned, but never published, by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

I would like to request you keep posting until you receive a reply.