tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5862127176999259859..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Can You Prove that God(s) Do Not Exist?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger322125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48115831768060670042013-12-24T06:21:49.786-05:002013-12-24T06:21:49.786-05:00mrengor! I had a blast learning from your defense...mrengor! I had a blast learning from your defenses in this blog. I appreciate you use of logic and a tact which was not shown by your dissenters. I hope you are not discouraged by the unreasonable posts some of these people have made, and truly wish for you to continue to defend your faith in the future. I can say that I have learned from reading your ideas. Much respect and admiration.<br />JohnJohn Abadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10433641055435630693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-36894188847580680172013-07-15T02:45:52.744-04:002013-07-15T02:45:52.744-04:00aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the "doc"...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the "doc" runs away as usual. I guess my dunks destroyed the rim or something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85974426326866983972013-07-14T11:43:31.615-04:002013-07-14T11:43:31.615-04:00Guys,
If Dominick is Vashti's intellectual st...Guys,<br /><br />If Dominick is Vashti's intellectual standard, then we should not be surprised that he won't read or won't understand our comments. They must be like a foreign language to Vashti. Vashti's mind must be so damaged or so "not there" that the only thing (s)he must understand about any comment must be "this is from a Christian" or "this is not from a Christian." If from Christian, then Vashti concludes that it must be right, if from a non-Christian, then Vashti concludes it must be wrong. No reasoning involved.<br /><br />But well, of course, Vashti thinks that a couple of drinks makes creationists into experts in advanced physics ... not surprising that Vashti would talk about "the lost minds of the lunatics" unaware of the irony.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88624985790811282572013-07-14T11:09:18.049-04:002013-07-14T11:09:18.049-04:00The way theists project their own anxieties and pr...The way theists project their own anxieties and prejudices onto their deities, as lutesuite says, another bit of compelling evidence.<br /><br />There may be a God (spoiler: except, no). But the one the theologians talk about is unknowable. And so we again have this extraordinary bait-and-switch: 'God is unknowable ... the priesthood say gay marriage is bad'. And the double standard: 'God is unknowable ... but you are not qualified to speculate about his nature, only we are'. <br /><br />We live in a tolerant, multicultural society. Most bigots seem to be religious. Is this because society gives a free pass to bigotry if it's religious, so bigots plead the rosary? Are bigots just gravitating to religion? Or, most scary, does religion make bigots? Or is it just a stupidity thing? There are smart people who are religious ... but they tend to be able to compartmentalize. Those who can't put their gods in a box may have a harder time of it. <br /> Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63553026440633452052013-07-14T10:09:30.666-04:002013-07-14T10:09:30.666-04:00I think that sexual orientation plays a great deal...<i>I think that sexual orientation plays a great deal in this case as we are discussing whether God exists or not. One's beliefs can be influenced by his or her sexual orientation, if he or she believes that a God does not approve his or her sexual orientation. Their views can be bias due to their sexual orientation, I believe.</i><br /><br />You've got it backwards.<br /><br />If one is a homophobic bigot, there is motivation to invent a deity who is also a homophobic bigot, thereby creating the false impression that one's bigotry is a moral principle.<br /><br />That the belief in God can serve to condone and encourage such bigotry is yet another reason to be an atheist. But one does not have to be homosexual to have that concern.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80141719438672189392013-07-14T07:40:55.099-04:002013-07-14T07:40:55.099-04:00Vashti has created a sock puppet "Liberte&quo...Vashti has created a sock puppet "Liberte" to agree with his ad hominem attacks. Real original.Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-25927070720850468032013-07-14T06:40:56.642-04:002013-07-14T06:40:56.642-04:00Oops. Thanks. Now, Mregnor and Vashti, watch caref...Oops. Thanks. Now, Mregnor and Vashti, watch carefully: now I know that, I accept my error and will never repeat it. Because that is the intellectually honest and personally satisfying thing to do. <br />Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2459773593777640492013-07-14T06:31:28.466-04:002013-07-14T06:31:28.466-04:00"One's beliefs can be influenced by his o..."One's beliefs can be influenced by his or her sexual orientation, if he or she believes that a God does not approve his or her sexual orientation."<br /><br />Again, a comforting theist myth: we're all atheists because we're, in their terms, sexual deviants or at the very least led by our lusts. <br /><br />No, we're atheists because the 'irrefutable proof' you present as an elegant mathematical demonstration of your god's existence is nothing of the sort. And that it's rather telling that when challenged most theists abandon any attempt to defend their position and just start throwing insults around. <br />Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-47153790460242609582013-07-14T02:53:32.783-04:002013-07-14T02:53:32.783-04:00Huh?
Assuming that your response is directed at ...Huh? <br /><br />Assuming that your response is directed at me, I ask:<br /><br />In what way are you trying to save my life, and what does that have to do with this thread? <br /><br />And what "boring job" do you think I have?The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-43375191230919441892013-07-13T22:36:41.653-04:002013-07-13T22:36:41.653-04:00I'm trying to save your life, not your boring ...I'm trying to save your life, not your boring job. Can you appreciate it?Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-89143451183177709042013-07-13T22:30:56.175-04:002013-07-13T22:30:56.175-04:00I finally watched the video. Too bad Dominick got ...I finally watched the video. Too bad Dominick got banned or he would have dismantled this psychotic rant. I have no patience for this. Sorry, but I have feelings and I feel sorry for the lost minds of the lunatics Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81548529290898211272013-07-13T22:23:22.958-04:002013-07-13T22:23:22.958-04:00vashti, neither you nor any other god pusher has e...vashti, neither you nor any other god pusher has ever "explained" that, even <b>IF</b> there was a "first cause", it must be the so-called "God" that you or they believe in, worship, and push. <br /><br />The jump from "first cause" to yhwh-satan-jesus-holy-ghost, or Zeus, Vishnu, Odin, allah, or any other so-called 'God(s)' that anyone has ever thought up and pushed is <b>ENORMOUS</b>. <br /><br />No 'God(s)' that anyone has ever conjured up has any evidence of its existence. If you think you can prove me wrong, show the evidence. Oh, and 'the bible says so' or some other 'holy text says so' or 'millions of people believe' is not evidence. The whole truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219999357041824471noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80298198759336167362013-07-13T21:29:01.546-04:002013-07-13T21:29:01.546-04:00I think one has to disagree. I think that sexual o...I think one has to disagree. I think that sexual orientation plays a great deal in this case as we are discussing whether God exists or not. One's beliefs can be influenced by his or her sexual orientation, if he or she believes that a God does not approve his or her sexual orientation. Their views can be bias due to their sexual orientation, I believe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-82831404203411075182013-07-13T18:27:17.254-04:002013-07-13T18:27:17.254-04:00I'm not sure why they are not loading?
Click ...<i>I'm not sure why they are not loading?</i><br /><br />Click on the "Load more" link.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-80057423966569865992013-07-13T18:23:11.409-04:002013-07-13T18:23:11.409-04:00Kalam was a Muslim
Just a minor correction, Jem. ...<i>Kalam was a Muslim</i><br /><br />Just a minor correction, Jem. The Kalam was a philosophical tradition (Islamic, of course), not a person.Piotr GÄ…siorowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06339278493073512102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-81024566110734588122013-07-13T17:51:41.290-04:002013-07-13T17:51:41.290-04:00Vashti, I understand your confusion. The First Cau...Vashti, I understand your confusion. The First Cause argument is rubbish for so many reasons it would be hard for anyone to keep them straight.<br /><br />For the record:<br /><br />1. There *are* quantum events that the current scientific model accepts are 'uncaused', certainly to a standard that Aristotle would have accepted. The example that's been given here is radioactive decay. <br /><br />2. The argument contains a serious logical error when it establishes that all physical effects have a physical cause ... but that the 'first cause' is metaphysical, not physical. <br /><br />3. The argument depends entirely on an archaic notions of what 'begins' means when we refer to the universe as a whole. (Simply put 'what caused time?' is a meaningless question, like 'what's north of the North Pole?')<br /><br />4. The argument depends entirely on an archaic understanding of what it means for a thing in the universe to 'begin' - it's wedded to old notions of 'matter' and 'form' we simply know now aren't meaningful. <br /><br />5. Even without referring to anything as gauche as facts, reality and empirical evidence, or anything as trendy as the scientific discoveries since the Enlightenment, the argument is disingenuous because it only infers what it seeks to prove. There's a massive leap from 'there is a first cause' to 'and we call it God'. <br /><br />6. ... and there's a second massive disingenuous leap if someone asserts that it proves *their* particular God exists. The fact that a believer in the Greek pantheon first came up with the idea, that Aquinas was (in modern terms) a Catholic, that Kalam was a Muslim and that William Craig Lane teaches at a fundamentalist evangelical institution might serve as a clue that the loudest proponents of the First Cause argument don't actually agree *which* brand of God they think lit the blue touchpaper. <br /><br />There's also a distinct (7), related to (5) and (6) - there's no reason to think an effect can't be superior in at least some aspects to a cause. Simple processes can refine, purify or add complexity to matter. Turning sand into a silicon chip does not represent a lessening, any more than Michelangelo ruined a bit of marble by carving David. There's no reason to worship a 'first cause' simply for *being* the first cause. <br /><br />Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-58591692214519087712013-07-13T17:30:06.482-04:002013-07-13T17:30:06.482-04:00Just to let you all know, I can't see your com...Just to let you all know, I can't see your comments blow mine with the scriptures. They are not loading, so unless you state your argument in the first few words of your comment, I don't know what you wrote. I'm not sure why they are not loading?Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85875238741491052602013-07-13T17:15:01.197-04:002013-07-13T17:15:01.197-04:00latesuit,
Do you still withhold the truth from y...latesuit, <br /><br />Do you still withhold the truth from your patients when proscribing statins or you tell them the truth now, that statistically their lives are going to be prolonged a few days? Come on, who cares about your profession and your income depending on patients returning regularly for nothing. <br /><br />Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54647007402086780402013-07-13T16:39:03.163-04:002013-07-13T16:39:03.163-04:00C'mon now, Vashti, don't back down so easi...C'mon now, <b>Vashti</b>, don't back down so easily. If you believe <b>Negative Entropy</b> wrote about quantum mechanics, then it must be true. Who cares if the evidence clearly shows that he didn't? Why would you start worrying about whether what you believe is consistent with the evidence, when you've been doing the opposite all along so far? Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12635689023740481032013-07-13T16:24:21.657-04:002013-07-13T16:24:21.657-04:00NE,
You must've mention QM in your other post...NE, <br />You must've mention QM in your other posts, as I had it stuck in my mind for some reason. <br /><br />It was Dinogenes then who was bragging about QM and how it's great properties eliminate the first cause.Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-62409024518500442852013-07-13T13:24:03.105-04:002013-07-13T13:24:03.105-04:00Sexual orientation is not relevant to this discuss...Sexual orientation is not relevant to this discussion. I don't allow comments that bring up irrelevant personal issues - that includes comments about someone's wife and children.<br /><br />Vashti, this is your first warning. You are entitled to one more but as soon as you commit a third offense, you will disappear from <i>Sandwalk</i>.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87784101498786780332013-07-13T13:17:06.588-04:002013-07-13T13:17:06.588-04:00Diogenes,
Your "tornado probability" ex...Diogenes,<br /><br />Your "tornado probability" explanation above is superb.<br /><br />:)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-88679184228703520102013-07-13T13:14:30.436-04:002013-07-13T13:14:30.436-04:00Vashti,
Please learn to read. I did not mention q...Vashti,<br /><br />Please learn to read. I did not mention quantum mechanics. Not a single time. I pointed to many other problems in the arguments that you presented. All the problems I focused on did not need me to know or not know about quantum mechanics. Your arguments are so flawed that we don't need to know if/when/how the universe started before we notice those flaws.<br /><br />Pay attention Vashti. Read what I wrote, don't just imagine it, read it. Make the effort to understand it. Stop making a ridiculous cartoon out of yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15837795422095154982013-07-13T12:53:01.082-04:002013-07-13T12:53:01.082-04:00If Vashti's smart, he might - correctly - susp...If Vashti's smart, he might - correctly - suspect that I'm basically asking him to stand on a big cartoon X and not to check for suspended anvils. <br /><br /><br /><br />Jemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10359685574788608040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-60619973493040708072013-07-13T12:33:27.158-04:002013-07-13T12:33:27.158-04:00NE says: "I think that this inference slice i...NE says: "I think that this inference slice is more of a cherry picking thing. It's a lack of consistency. The creationists sees one generalization but ignores the other."<br /><br />Not exactly the same-- cherry picking refers to the data from which generalizations, from which "general principles" are derived. Inductive slice refers to how you phrase the "general principles" derived from the data.<br /><br />Arguments from Intelligent Design and Christian apologetics suffer BOTH from cherry-picking their data set, and THEN applying an inductive slice to the cherry-picked data!Diogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15551943619872944637noreply@blogger.com