addmoreice vs Rickiibeta

[addmoreice]

Long debate between me and Rickiibeta, unlike the previous two debates I posted (one on this archive, one on old page archive), Rickiibeta tends to try and use custom definitions, throw out a lot of assertions (he even CALLS them assertions!) and hammer along on a single idea instead of the 'shot gun' approach as the other two debates where. oh and he also tends to ignore when you have made a solid point. :roll:

This debate is still on going as of Oct 6, 2009 at 8:19 pm.

Little context:

I've discussed things with Rickiibeta before, I'm familiar with his basic Christian beliefs and I refer to them during the discussion (such as when I instantly 'assume' he is a Christian...well no, he told me he was in private messages in previous communications hehe) feel free to critique my points latter on. Don't be shy pointing out my spelling and grammar mistakes. I'm working to improve this.

My initial response was to another user who made a claim about '"god's plan" this is where Richiibeta chimed in. This debates splits for a tiny bit (and i will point out where this is) and at points my comments get....very long....multiple POSTS long. but I'll do my best to point out where everything goes.

 

[addmoreice]

you miss the point. all powerful. all powerful. no plan needed.

'let there be imperfection!' tada he gets it.

that is what all powerful means.

 

[addmoreice]

"His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. you may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense."

also, plan can be defined as definite purpose. there is no error in God being all powerful, and also knowing your purpose. in fact, that follows correctly.

 

[addmoreice]

except in the concept used it always refers to something he is trying to cause to happen. there is a reason for things to be the way they are.

except being all powerful whatever the reason is can be caused by simply wanting it to be so. he wants to know if souls where good or bad and so divide them into heaven and hell? he can do it. he simply wants it to happen and it does. some other strange magical undefined "reason" for things to supposedly be the way they are? then he can cause that to happen as well. the only way that argument doesn't work is if the 'reason' he wants is for things to happen as they are....aka he DOES want evil and pain and suffering, simply for the reason of evil and pain and suffering. but then if we are talking about the god of the bible that makes perfect sense.

 

[addmoreice]

clarify your thoughts better. restructure and try again. specify pronouns, and complete your arguments.

 

[addmoreice]

sure.

whenever you hear the phrase 'he has a plan' or 'there is a plan' it is always in the context of something bad happening. ie, this happened but it was supposed to happen. it was necessary for the plan to work.

in the standard specification of god (at least the christian one) god is all knowing, all powerful, and loving (or at least benevolent to some, depends on if you take more of the old testament or more of the new testament). anything he intends to happen will happen. there is no need for a plan because whatever he wants is what will happen. it is not necessary for evil to happen because god is all powerful and hence can cause his plan to work in any way he wants. it is literally possible for him to stop all forms of evil everywhere. the entire concept of evil is worthless if you have a god who is all powerful and all knowing and good. it's not possible for evil to happen....yet it does.

therefore the only reason it is possible to conceive of for there to BE evil if an all good (or at least benevolent to some), all knowing, all powerful god exists is if the plan itself has evil. ie the 'plan' is not to some end goal but instead for the suffering, pain, and yes evil, that is going on to be the purpose itself. even then this contradicts with the non evil god idea (though not the benevolent to some god idea) unless of course you redefine good in the manor the Calvinists do.

for an all knowing, benevolent, all powerful god to have a 'plan' yet for us to experience evil is basically nonsensical.

 

[addmoreice]

sorry, i am a busy man. i am not forgetting to respond... this question is raised and answered in the book The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis... the punchline is:

"His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible."

i.e. creating a free creature without the possibility of evil is nonsense just as 'can god build a rock so heavy not even he can lift'.

"Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them he two words 'God can'"

both quotes are taken from chapter 2: Divine Omnipotence; page 18. i suggest reading the entire book (especially the chess game metaphor on page 25 near the end of the same chapter), or at least chapter two which concerns your current rationale. or, you could not read it and go along presenting this evidence as proof God does not exist and be as dogmatic as many the religious folks you talk rotten about.

 

[addmoreice]

"His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible."

congratulations you have redefined what 'omnipotent' means till the word is useless.

"i.e. creating a free creature without the possibility of evil is nonsense just as 'can god build a rock so heavy not even he can lift'."

yes, it is nonsense. as in it doesn't make sense. as in the god concept is fundamentally flawed because it is logically inconsistent. does GOD not have free will? if he does have free will then he has the possibility of evil. if he doesn't then why would you worship him for doing that which he had no option but to do? you might as well worship gravity for pulling rocks to the earth.

yes, I've read C.S. Lewis's works. lots of pretty words. lots of flawed analogies no solution to the inherent problems. his basic argument comes down to...oh well ignore those problems. um sorry? no?

"or, you could not read it and go along presenting this evidence as proof God does not exist and be as dogmatic as many the religious folks you talk rotten about."

no this is not evidence god does not exist, this is evidence that the god presented is logically inconsistent. logic is DESCRIPTIVE not PROSCRIPTIVE. thats important. logic only says 'this is how things have behaved before, so we can be reasonably sure things will behave this way' logic does not say a thing MUST behave this way. god could be something that defies logic and acts in illogical ways. I freely admit that. and? until you provide evidence this is true it doesn't mean you are correct and said illogical god exists, it simply means you have claimed far more then you can support THEN you claim more in order to explain the problems which you have currently claimed.

it's like me claiming that i have a perpetual motion machine, then you saying that violates the laws of conservation of energy, and then me claiming that i have a form of exotic mater that doesn't fallow the laws of conservation of energy. sure i could be telling the truth and be completely right, but adding ANOTHER unsubstantiated claim to explain a past unsubstantiated extreme claim doesn't make it more likely, it makes it less likely.

until evidence is presented that is commiserate with the claim i will take the logical default position of non belief. making further claims to explain the issues with previous claims doesn't make you correct. it just increases the burden of proof.

 

[addmoreice]

congratulations you have redefined what 'omnipotent' means till the word is useless.

actually, i am telling you that your definition is the useless definition.

the god concept is fundamentally flawed because it is logically inconsistent

support this claim. the burden of proof is in your court, not mine. i believe in something, you do not. it is illogical for me to try to disprove a belief it nothing, that sir is nonsense.

you could say that you believe in the big-bang theory, but conveniently atheists avoid this since it lack as much evidence as intelligent design. you're welcome to try and argue that fact, just don't turn it into a "i believe in science and am therefore intellectually superior" i know the science, i accept science has value, but i do not make science a god. i do not accept their claims are correct just because they are scientists; just as i don't accept saying that 'God is bigger than us and therefore we just have to trust him'. there is an explanation to everything.

until evidence is presented that is commiserate with the claim i will take the logical default position of non belief

until evidence is presented that is commiserate with the claim of the big-bang (rather than the "god" of time making the improbable, probable), i will take the logical default position of belief.

 

[addmoreice]

"actually, i am telling you that your definition is the useless definition"

Omni = all. potent = powerful. all powerful. you then say he does not have a power. good work. definition reduced to nonsense.

"support this claim. the burden of proof is in your court, not mine. i believe in something, you do not. it is illogical for me to try to disprove a belief it nothing, that sir is nonsense."

first. YOU believe. you provide evidence, thats how it works. I don't have to justify a non belief in fairies. here watch i can show you.

do you believe in snargleflargs? the answer is no. you do not. it doesn't matter WHAT snargleflargs are. you don't have the belief in them. to convince you snargleflargs exist i would have to provide evidence for them. the amount of evidence depends on the claim made. if i said snargleflargs are simply the german name for teapots you might only require a quick look up on wikipedia or something. if i said snargleflargs are interdimensional beings that want to eat your brain....you might require more evidence. you know evidence of alternate dimensions, evidence for these beings, evidence they can come here, evidence they want to eat your brain, evidence you HAVE a brain (oops not that last one, thats just me being an asshole).

as for "the god concept is fundamentally flawed because it is logically inconsistent"

you are absolutely right. I just made the claim, now i need to provide evidence for my statement.

here we go. you said he is all powerful. if he is all powerful then he can do things which he can not do. a paradox. (make a rock he can not lift is the silly common example). the 'explination' you took was 'well he can't do things which would cause a paradox' means you moved the goal post. a logicall fallacy. what you failed to realize is that you COULD have simply claimed that god WAS illogical (as in not bound by logic) but then would be required to provide evidence for this stance (of course then you have that whole issue of why would you worship something you fundamentaly can't understand and have no way of knowing anything about, you might as well worship snargleflargs)

"you could say that you believe in the big-bang theory, but conveniently atheists avoid this since it lack as much evidence as intelligent design"

intelligent design isn't a theory. it literaly breaks down to the argument from ignorance. 'i do not understand how x could evolve, therefore god'. It has no mechanism (god dun it!) makes no predictions (god dun it this way cus he wants to!) and is not falsifiable (whatever you find, god dun it this way cus he wanted to).

the big bang IS a theory. the big bang was demonstrated rather conclusively. discovery of background microwave radiation to parts out to a billionth of a billionth of a percent matching predicted values. observed red shift of all stellar bodies. expansion of the universe. etc etc etc. all observed. i don't 'believe' in the big bang. the big bang has enough evidence to demonstrate it is most likely the correct answer and until evidence is presented that explains the observed evidence better comes along i'm going to use it. your arguing i should plug my ears scream 'lalalalala i can't hear you!' and ignore reality.

notice that evolution and the big bang do not proclude god. Only YOUR god (or at least your doctrin of it) and hence it must be wrong....not because you have evidence of this, but just because your doctrin must be right. most likely you lack a basic understanding of even the tiniest part of what the Big Bang and evolution say about the universe and life. you have the straw man images of it but not the science.

i know the science, i accept science has value, but i do not make science a god.

i don't make science a god. i accept that science is useful. try to exit your theist world view for a moment and see my point of view. you keep thinking i 'worship' science. i don't. just like you don't 'worship' breakfeast even though you tend to eat it alot. 'oh no! worship! something routinely done! oh no you get upset when people force you not to eat! it's his god!' same kind of sillyness man.

i do not accept their claims are correct just because they are scientists; just as i don't accept saying that 'God is bigger than us and therefore we just have to trust him'. there is an explanation to everything.

i don't accept scientists claims just because they are scientists...i accept there claims TENTAVILY because they have the evidence. you on the other hand accept the bible because others told you it was correct. you accept the claims of jesus because (according to the book) he said he was god (well actually he didn't claim this, the council of nicea did in the 4th century. thats right. they VOTED on the divinity of jesus. voted on 'reality' and you wonder why i think religion is nuts?).

until evidence is presented that is commiserate with the claim of the big-bang (rather than the "god" of time making the improbable, probable), i will take the logical default position of belief.

sure i can provide evidence for the big bang. cosmic background radiation, Einsteins equations of relativity (specifically special relativity), and red shift measurements.

now provide evidence that the default state of the universe is an all knowing, all powerfull, all benevolent creator god who then created (EX NIHILO!) angels, heaven, hell, earth, spirits, magic, set forth everything etc etc etc....oh and that it's the christian god and YOUR specific christian god.

thats your 'default logical position' of belief.

snargleflargs man, snargleflargs.

 

[addmoreice]

alas i encounter yet another "i am smarter than you because i am an atheist" attitude. i am just as tired of this as you are of evangelical Christians, or fox news.

Omni = all. potent = powerful. all powerful. you then say he does not have a power. good work. definition reduced to nonsense.

All: indicates the order) of all elements included in a group. or indicates the whole number or amount of every one of a class
source

the power to do all things does not include, it is class or order, the power to do all agents that are self-contradictory or intrinsically impossible. you are incorrectly expanding the order of "all" to mean more that it actually means.

"This is no limit to His power. if you choose to say 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix them the two other words 'God can'...Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk about God"

you said he is all powerful. if he is all powerful then he can do things which he can not do. a paradox. (make a rock he can not lift is the silly common example). the 'explination' you took was 'well he can't do things which would cause a paradox' means you moved the goal post. a logicall fallacy.

Since the principles of certain sciences, such as logic, geometry and arithmetic are taken only from the formal principles of things, on which the essence of the thing depends, it follows that God could not make things contrary to these principles. For example, that a genus was not predicable of the species, or that lines drawn from the centre to the circumference were not equal, or that a triangle did not have three angles equal to two right angles."

i have stood firm in my definition of omnipotence defined as: the power to do all things intrinsically possible. that definition does not create a paradox.

regardless you cannot use characteristics of the Cristian God, via the bible, to disprove the possibility of an intelligent designer, just as i cannot use the bible to prove there is an intelligent designer. especially since the bible never touches on the possibility of someone believing in no designer whatsoever except to call that person a fool.

intelligent design isn't a theory. it litteraly breaks down to the argument from ignorance

i prefer to use the term 'argument from personal incredulity' i can not bring myself to believe in the big bag (though yes there is evidence like the observed red shift of all stellar bodies and the expansion of the universe), largely in part because of the Unmoved Mover concept. there is no creditable evidence as to what started the "bang"(only evidence as to it happening) and due to the high improbability (or the fact that it is intrinsically impossible) that the bang started on its own (due to the laws of motion) i conclude that something outside of the reaction put it into motion.

if you cannot accept this logic to be as sound as your own you are as dogmatic as the Christians you criticize.

you on the other hand accept the bible because others told you it was correct. you accept the claims of jesus because

do not. and this is not an argument of the bible.

thats right. they VOTED on the divinity of jesus.

thank you for this. i already knew it. and i concluded the divinity of Jesus on my own accord, and again irrelevant to the argument of intelligent design.

voted on 'reality' and you wonder why i think religion is nuts

religious people are nuts. anyone who takes what someone else tells them as truth and doctrine is nuts and i have little respect to them. see: these people

sure i can provide evidence for the big bang. cosmic background radiation, einsteins equations of relativity (specificly special relativity), and red shift measurements.

show me evidence of how it started.

 

[addmoreice]

'alas i encounter yet another 'i am smarter than you because i am an atheist' attitude. i am just as tired of this as you are of evangelical Christians, or fox news."

and again i meet a christian who thinks because i point out his lack of logic and the use of logical flaws he thinks i am rude and snooty. no sorry. i think i'm correct because i used evidence and you did not. i think i am right because i did not make flashing red light logic mistakes as you did.

spin out that tired old yarn about how atheists are closed minded also why don't you. it's also good for a laugh. just because i think you are wrong, and demonstrate it, does not mean i think your stupid. i simply think you are wrong. it's your job to convince me you are right, not to convince me your so fragile that any discussion that argues against your point of view has to include a comment of the 'don't be mean' variety.

ugg. all powerfull as usually presented means the power to do anything. period.

you are using a different definition. fine. we now know this. thats perfectly fine. it's your god, you define it any way you want. but the more nonsensical and the more you have to twist definitions from the norm (but only after you use that definition mind you!) the less i think you are making a cogent point and the more it sounds like weasle words to get 'out from under' the evidence against your argument.

your not showing me evidence, your twisting your claims into something else just so you don't have to admit the lack of evidence.

look, your claims could be 100% completely true. but if you want to convince me of them your going to have to provide evidence, the more claims you make in the effort to justify your first claim the less likely i am to accept them.

God, creation, ex nihilo, spirits, angels, demons, devils, curses, magic, souls, heaven, hell, special creation, sin, adam and eve, etc etc etc etc. some or all of these claims go together in the claims of christianity. these are major major claims. any one of which would require mounds of evidence.

thats a HUGGGGEEE platefull of claims and a HUUUUGEEEE plate full of evidence that is needed to back it up. but most of your claims have been nonsensical (until you redefined later your definitions, oh soory i didn't mean the common everyday use of the word i meant my VERY specific claim that only applies to my god in this way, oh ok...)

"the power to do all things does not include, it is class or order, the power to do all agents that are self-contradictory or intrinsically impossible. you are incorrectly expanding the order of "all" to mean more that it actually means."

and i say it again, ok if thats your definition. fine we can work with that from here on....and?

how does that change the claim about god? you said he had to allow evil. i said he didn't. you claim it is required for free will. i pointed out it is not (by pointing to the god claim itself). I could also simply point out that if the god you claim to exists did then the world we exist in wouldn't contain evil. it would contain neutral, good, and the greatest good. nothing else. you would still have the free will to do neutral, but you would not have the ability to do evil to anyone else. if you did then the god who is supposedly benevolent would not be benevolent for not stopping it. if i hold a gun to your head and pull the trigger i'm evil, if someone else does not stop me even when they have the ability to with no effort what so ever...then they are evil. if you hand me a gun, put the bullets in the chamber, put it to there head, then say 'hey pull it if you like, i'm not stopping you' then you sir are evil.

worse then the problem of evil is the problem of suffering. why is there suffering in the world? god can stop all suffering that is not caused by free will. earthquake? plague? not on god's watch.

 

[addmoreice]

NOTE: This is a continuation of the above post...it was two parts in the original and i'm trying to recreate the similar posting.

"i have stood firm in my definition of omnipotence defined as: the power to do all things intrinsically possible. that definition does not create a paradox."

no you used the word without mentioning that it was different than the normal meaning. but hey no worries. lets go with your definition. doesn't solve the problem.

I love how you side stepped the point about god either not having free will by your argument (and hence no more worthy of worship then gravity) or he has the potential to do evil (and hence is not all benevolent).

"regardless you cannot use characteristics of the Cristian God, via the bible, to disprove the possibility of an intelligent designer, just as i cannot use the bible to prove there is an intelligent designer."

your right. i'm simply pointing out the traits behaviors and properties of the christian god do not reflect the world we have. it is not possible for the god of the bible to exist in the world we have without some other thing unpresented to explain the issues. at least other myths like norse myth and greek myth had an explination for why prayers are not answered and the gods did not allways intercede. the answer was wrong but at least plausible. the gods where dicks and busy with there own shit.

"especially since the bible never touches on the possibility of someone believing in no designer whatsoever except to call that person a fool."

oh it touches on more then the posibility of atheists, it said more then we are fools. it also said we should be killed.

"i prefer to use the term 'argument from personal incredulity' i can not bring myself to believe in the big bag (though yes there is evidence like the observed red shift of all stellar bodies and the expansion of the universe), largely in part because of the Unmoved Mover concept. there is no creditable evidence as to what started the 'bang'(only evidence as to it happening).."

'argument from personal incredulaty' is a logical fallacy. you get that right?

first: the big bang says nothing about before the plank instant. nothing. it could have been god, it could have been a pay phone, it could have had no cause, it may be a meaningless question. it says nothing.

repeate this with me "the big bang theory says nothing about before the plank instant."

do you get what that means? it means that you are saying you don't accept the theory of the big bang, something that does not touch on the start of the universe, only the OBSERVED universe, and reject it because you can not accept what it has nothing to do with.

see why i think your ignorant (not stupid) and are shooting at the strawmen you where told to?

"...and due to the high improbability (or the fact that it is intrinsically impossible) that the bang started on its own (due to the laws of motion)..."

and there is our old friend argument from ignorance.

first off. your arguing the laws OF the universe apply TO the universe. we have no evidence this is the case. we assume it does in our theories but we have no way to be sure of this. we honestly admit this. nothing could have created everything. we have evidence of things being created without cause from 'nothing' IN the universe. cassimir effect, quantum fluctuations, hawking radiation and many others.

the entire universe could have been a quantum fluctuation of energy (no greater then what we all ready have) but the energy, positive AND negative energy, could just be spread out in an interesting way. sure there are issues with that interpretion, just like all the other nonstandard formulations of the big bang theory (the one that goes up to the plank instant and no further.....because we have no hard evidence beyond that!) but that doesn't mean it's impossible. just like it's possible that a god created the universe. and?

we don't know. we can't know yet. but more importantly you don't either.

"...i conclude that something outside of the reaction put it into motion."

except we are not talking about motion. we are talking about,as far as we know, a singular action with no other represention in the universe. applying analogies of 'movement' to it may be misguided, right, or wrong. we don't know, and neither do you.

even better your arguing everything needs a mover...accept this thing we have no evidence of. occums razor. eliminate the unneed claim, the more likely claim (though not definitively the correct one) is that the universe does not need a mover.

if quantum foam model is correct the big bang could have been one universe of the quantum foam model that just happened to become expansive.

if instead loop quantum gravity is correct then time before the plank instant 'curves' around and becomes a space like dimension, you might as well ask 'whats south of the south pole' the question is nonsensical as formed in this context. there was nothing 'before'.

if brane theory is correct then our universe happens to be a 4 dimensional (or more, debates resounds) intersection of a multidimensional brane collision.

or the 'cosmic bounce' theory could be correct in which case we just happen to reside in a single anthropic principle acceptable version of an endless cycle of eternal universe that expands and contracts over and over again bouncing into new big bangs each with different properties.

etc etc etc etc.

any of these could be correct, or none of them. but arguing 'i can't understand therefore god' is not a logical argument anyone should accept. it could be correct but it's not a valid argument anyone should accept. it's like saying the price of tea should be a dollar because yellow is a pretty color. the price of tea COULD be correctly set at a dollar but arguing it has anything to do with the color yellow is silly.

just like no one should have accepted the god makes rainbow argument before newton figured out optics. it was just as stupid an argument then as it is now. (only god could arrange the colors like that, therefore god. complexity implies design etc etc)

"if you cannot accept this logic to be as sound as your own you are as dogmatic as the Christians you criticize."

ROFL. i admit you could be 100% right, i accept the possibility. i simply require evidence. i present evidence for my claims and you reject the evidence, admiting it is valid, simply because it does not first align with your preconcieved notions.....and i'm dogmatic.

ROFL. all i got to say.

"religious people are nuts. anyone who takes what someone else tells them as truth and doctrine is nuts and i have little respect to them."

religion is nuts. i stand by that. when i say that i mean it using the common vernacular of it. 'claims which do not conform to reality'. not all parts of religion are nuts. but to believe something without evidence...especially life changing and ending things? yes that is nuts.

"show me evidence of how it started."

if i where to say:

'christianity is wrong because zues can't throw lightning bolts, they are made of electricity'

you would think i'm a nutter.

that is the same level of ignorance you have demonstrated in the understanding of the big bang theory. i can show you evidence of how the big bang happened from the plank instant on the only thing we can provide evidence for. thats it. nothing more.

i can't provide evidence for how it started, or even if there WAS a start. no one has that evidence. providing it would earn you a nobel prize in cosmology.

(broken up in too two parts, to long for reddit. rofl)

 

[addmoreice]

i feel like now we can get somewhere.

i think i'm correct because i used evidence and you did not.

you are using a different definition. fine. we now know this. thats perfectly fine. it's your god, you define it any way you want.

but the more nonsensical and the more you have to twist definitions from the norm (but only after you use that definition mind you!)

most of your claims have been nonsensical (until you redefined later your definitions, oh soory i didn't mean the common everyday use of the word i meant my VERY specific claim that only applies to my god in this way, oh ok...) ect ect

i defined from my very firsy word of my first reply the definition i currently hold:

"His omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. you may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense."

this was my very first post in this reply. my entire purpose was to refute your paradoxical definition of the omnipotence of the Christian God. any other claims i was not in the position of supporting, however i am prepared to support them at your request.

how does that change the claim about god? you said he had to allow evil. i said he didn't.

my definition says that God cannot do nonsense. creating freewill creatures without the possibility of evil is like creating a circle that has a flat side. it's nonsense.

and i have no problem with the atrocities that happen, and the fact that God lets them happen. it's not God's fault you stepped on my shoe it is yours. what would be the point of God coming in and stopping everything? if so, he shouldn't have bothered to begin with.

In a game of chess you can make certain arbitrary concessions to your opponent, which stand to the ordinary rules of the game as miracles stand to the laws of nature. You can deprive yourself of a castle, or allow the other man sometimes to take back a move made inadvertently. but if you conceded everything that at any moment happened to suit him- if all his moves were revocable and if all your pieces disappeared whenever their position on the board was not to his liking- then you could not have a game at all... try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you will find that you have excluded life itself

moving right along, i am just trying to tackle the larger points to stay on track and save time...

God, creation, ex nihilo, spirits, angels, demons, devils, curses, magic, souls, heaven, hell, special creation, sin, adam and eve, etc etc etc etc. some or all of these claims go together in the claims of christianity. these are major major claims. any one of which would require mounds of evidence

agreed, and i am sorry if i have implicitly or explicitly made these claims. though i am confident in my ability to back these claims up, now is not the time. the only claim i would like to assert/ debate is intelligent design vs big bang

which brings me to the rest of your comment.

'argument from personal incredulaty' is a logical fallacy. you get that right

no i do not. proof by contradiction.

but arguing 'i can't understand therefore god' is not a logical argument anyone should accept.

it is not that i do not understand. it is that what i do understand, is the supreme improbability of nothing creating something out of nothing. at some point, something, somehow, caused the universe to Bang. i believe that someone did it.

i can't provide evidence for how it started, or even if there WAS a start. no one has that evidence.

bingo. you don't know any more than i do. my logic lies in the mathematical improbability. there are mathematical calculations of certain aspects of the beginning of the bang that would be necessary to happen. the numbers on these are astronomical (teehee). for this reason i can comfortably conclude that the chance of this event happening in this way, is is impossible.

proof by contradiction:

the universe exists.

the universe had a begining

the universe started via big bang

this is mathematically impossible

therefore the universe was not started via big bang

*here i use big bang to mean the multiple theories on how the universe started

 

[addmoreice]

"my definition says that God cannot do nonsense. creating freewill creatures without the possibility of evil is like creating a circle that has a flat side. it's nonsense."

"and i have no problem with the atrocities that happen, and the fact that God lets them happen. it's not God's fault you stepped on my shoe it is yours. what would be the point of God coming in and stopping everything? if so, he shouldn't have bothered to begin with."

lets try this again is your god benevolent ? does he not wish to stop evil?

worse you skip over entirely the point about your god allowing natural disasters which he could stop. the problem of suffering. the problem with evil is relatively mild depending on your specific claims about god (it's still an issue for you. you still haven't explained why it's not 'neutral, good, and greatest good' instead it's 'evil to good').

I love how when you have no answer you just ignore it.

what about that 'god can't create something with free will that can't do evil'? i love how you assert this, but fail to explain this. i say it again. a benevolent god that is all powerful (even by your definition) can simply make a universe where evil is not possible. where your options range from neutral to greatest good and nothing worse then that.

worse you seem to fail to get my earlier point. this either leaves god without free will...or a god that can do evil, which contradicts your earlier claim.

lets touch on this shall we?

"try to exclude the possibility of suffering which the order of nature and the existence of free wills involve, and you will find that you have excluded life itself"

read this a few times in your head. read it until the sentence sinks in. suffering is required to allow free will and the rules of the universe. I don't agree with the first part. that suffering is required for free will. the two are not connected (and thats the point of the problem with suffering) he is blatantly asserting that it does without evidence or explanation.

the second part is the part that should wake you up though. yes, in this universe suffering is inevitable. thats the point of the argument god could have made the universe in a way where suffering DIDN'T exist but he supposedly did not. make it so animals don't need to eat other living things. where no one can become to hot or to cold. where no earthquakes tsunamis, plagues, tornado's etc etc etc exist. we are still free to kill each other, but nothing, and i mean NOTHING, outside of free will would hurt us....but your god didn't do this? be warned, bringing up eden does not fix this. it only makes it worse.

"agreed, and i am sorry if i have implicitly or explicitly made these claims. though i am confident in my ability to back these claims up, now is not the time. the only claim i would like to assert/ debate is intelligent design vs big bang"

very well. present evidence for intelligent design. i've all ready presented more then enough evidence for the big bang. of course...your arguing biology vs cosmology. apples and oranges. you are all ready in a bad starting place. what i THINK you mean is 'special creation of the universe' or 'creationism' or one of the other variants. if you want to call it ID thats fine to. i'm just assuming here you mean cosmology portion of it. correct me if i'm wrong here.

"bingo. you don't know any more than i do. "

correct. 100%. and it's arrogant and ignorant to claim a cause without evidence and then claim specific traits abilities and behaviors of this cause.

me: whats in the box?

you: a purple elephant with three wings that wants you to scream 'snagle!' every three seconds.

me: how do you know?

you: well it HAS to be an elephant!

me: why?

you: because it has to!

me: but you can't see whats in it, neither can i. there is no reason to claim anything until more evidence is presented.

you: aha! because you can't show there ISN'T a purple elephant with three wings that demands cries of 'snargle!' it must be that a three winged purple elephant that cries out for 'snargle' exists in the box!

me: but that makes no sense knowing what we do about the universe so far! it could be, but it's unlikely!

you: so? i can't possibly see how it could be anything else! there fore it is!

it seems silly, but it's nothing more then an unlikely elephant inserted in for a silly god claim. same thing.

"'argument from personal incredulity' is a logical fallacy. you get that right

" no i do not. proof by contradiction."

oooh swing and a miss. this is a lie for jesus!

maybe try THIS link argument from ignorance

funny how you think 'argument from ignorance' is the same as 'argument from contradiction' they are not, worse you fail to get that argument from personal incredulity is a type of argument from ignorance.

still a fallacy.

 

[addmoreice]

it seems silly, but it's nothing more then an unlikely elephant inserted in for a silly god claim. same thing.

i am not arguing an elephant in the box.

you: whats in the box?

me: from what i have observed about the box it is highly improbable that whatever is in the box has the same propertys as what is outside of the box

you: how do you know?

me: i can observe outside the box that things operate in such a such a way and i have calculated the possibility of the same things happening inside of the box and the numbers are astronomical. therefore i concude that whatver is in the box cannot opperate under the same laws and conditions outside of the box.

you: but you can't see whats in it, neither can i. there is no reason to claim anything until more evidence is presented.

me: yes i agree, and until enough evidence supports the probability of the inside of the box operating under normal conditions i will assume it does not.

my argument is not 'i don't understand therefore god' it is 'all of the math shows that the universe was not created within the natural laws of the rest of the universe therefore something outside of the laws of the universe had to of acted upon it.'

i am very aware of what argument for ignorance is. and am also aware that you are a wiki junky and spend too much time on atheist forms instead of putting your own rational thought into your arguments.

funny how you think 'argument from ignorance' is the same as 'argument from contradiction'

i understand the difference. you are talking to a math undergrad who uses proof by contradiction on a regular basis. i understand how it works. do you?here and here

 

[addmoreice]

"you: whats in the box?

"me: from what i have observed about the box it is highly improbable that whatever is in the box has the same propertys as what is outside of the box

"you: how do you know?

"me: i can observe outside the box that things operate in such a such a way and i have calculated the possibility of the same things happening inside of the box and the numbers are astronomical. therefore i concude that whatver is in the box cannot opperate under the same laws and conditions outside of the box.

"you: but you can't see whats in it, neither can i. there is no reason to claim anything until more evidence is presented.

"me: yes i agree, and until enough evidence supports the probability of the inside of the box operating under normal conditions i will assume it does not.

"my argument is not 'i don't understand therefore god' it is 'all of the math shows that the universe was not created within the natural laws of the rest of the universe therefore something outside of the laws of the universe had to of acted upon it.'"

um....no.

you have no math. none.

tell me what is the odds of magic man doing it? thats what your asking me to believe here. magic man done it.

your throwing out 'mathematical probability' like you have done math and understand probability when you have all ready demonstrated a fundamental deficient in the understanding of probability.

when you say

"'all of the math shows that the universe was not created within the natural laws of the rest of the universe therefore something outside of the laws of the universe had to of acted upon it.'"

you are talking out of your ass.

we have no knowledge. NONE of the start of the universe. we have no knowledge that there IS a start of the universe. we have no knowledge that claims that the rules that apply TO the universe are the same as what applies WITHIN the universe. we have no knowledge that there even IS an outside the universe. your claiming you have evidence off ALL of this...and that you know the probability of how this could come about naturally.

you still don't seem to get it.

you are assuming the universe had to be random. WHY? complexity does not indicate design. complexity indicates complexity. nothing else.

a snowflake wasn't designed but it's highly complex. the simple rules creates the dynamic results.

complexity from simplicity.

ORDER does not indicate design. a rainbow is highly ordered but again, it stems from simple rules.

"i am very aware of what argument for ignorance is. and am also aware that you are a wiki junky and spend too much time on atheist forms instead of putting your own rational thought into your arguments."

yeah, how dare i use references to back up my claims and research my argument. bad on me. it's so much easier to pull things out of your ass and pretend to have evidence that no one has.

"i understand the difference. you are talking to a math undergrad who uses proof by contradiction on a regular basis. i understand how it works. do you?"

proof by contradiction and argument from personal incredulity or argument from ignorance are not the same thing. here this should help A != B.

they are two different things.

proof by contradiction says A leads to B which leads to C which leads to not A therefore A can not be true.

argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance is literally 'i do not understand A therefore not A.'

it's not an argument. it's an admission of ignorance.

you have admitted your ignorance, and reiterated it every time you make a stupid comment about the start of the universe. the big bang is not about the start of the universe. it's about the start of the observed (and possibly observable as in it might be a law of the universe saying we can't see further back) NOT about the start of the universe.

get it?

a car may be new to you but that doesn't mean it was made new right there.

we are talking about that same situation. before the plank instant we can not see anything and as far as we know so far it might not be possible to see further back.

your claiming to have the box, know there is an inside of the box with no evidence of it, that the box has a purple elephant with three wings (ie, something no one has observed that behaves counter to known evidence and is unique in all the universe) but further your claiming this because you have 'done the math' on what is possible to be in the box....without ever having seen 'inside the box' or even have a rough understanding of what the box shape is (which is what the Big Bang describes...NOT what is inside the box).

see why i think your 'argument' is bull shit? you reject the measurements of the outside of the box outright. claim we say those measurements are whats inside the box and then have the pure unmitigated arrogance to claim to know what is INSIDE the box?

but when i point out that you lack the basic understanding of what those measurements mean (and you demonstrated this multiple times) let alone what the possible implications are for the inside of the box, as varied and tentative as those possible options are....even when i point out your claim is a possible answer but unlikely one...you claim i'm the arrogant one?

wow. you sir take the ignoramus hypocrite of the week award.

 

[addmoreice]

see why i think your 'argument' is bull shit?

nope. in no way did you orchestrate any type of coherent rebuttal. you are adamantly trying to box my arguments into other types of arguments you are aware of, rather than looking at my arguments alone.

To repeat what others have said, requires education, to challenge it, requires brains.

Discussion is an exchange of knowledge; argument is an exchange of ignorance

good day sir.

 

[addmoreice]

"nope. in no way did you orchestrate any type of coherent rebuttal. you are adamantly trying to box my arguments into other types of arguments you are aware of, rather than looking at my arguments alone."

you say it's mathematically impossible. which is funny because your argument is that it's all random but since it's unlikely this possible universe COULD exist then it's probable it was selected...which means it IS possible simply improbable. that is IF i simply assume your out of your ass statement about things no one has any knowledge of (and can't possibly know yet) is true and that you have done math to support this.

sure. I'm unreasonable.

no sir, your an idiot. i simply had assumed you where ignorant. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you simply needed some quick references, a bit of discussion to where your 'arguments' are flawed and you would quickly realize the problem and go educate yourself.

thats not the case.

you make claims without evidence, you support them by pointing to other people making claims without evidence (who support themselves in a nice round robin argument from authorities with each other). then you assert things that you don't know and no one can know and when i point out flaws in your argument that you have no answer for...you ignore them.

wonderful, shows you what cognitive dissonance can do to a mind.

 

[addmoreice]

you say it's mathematically impossible... it IS possible simply improbable

this shows how little you actually attempted to understand my side of the discussion. becuase i said this:

my logic lies in the mathematical improbability... [but] i can comfortably conclude that the chance of this event happening in this way, is is impossible.

you can go ahead and think that with enough time the improbable becomes probable, but i, sir do not have that much faith. easy example

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you simply needed some quick references

in other words, you let me talk, assumed you were right no matter what i said, and when i was done tried to show me "the truth" .... sounds familiar.