| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Uthur" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2004 09:25:44 PM |
| Object: |
argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
This discussion seems to be generating more heat than light,
so perhaps it is better to break it into pieces - that way
we can at least see what we are arguing about more clearly.
So then, let us explore these primary points until we are all
satisfied:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the
answer to this one is 'we don't know')
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
(I'm guessing the answer to this one is 'probably so - but very different')
Please try to keep the flames to a minimum this time -
remember you have nothing to lose by debating theoretical
topics with total strangers on usenet.
And if you find this whole discussion so boring that you have nothing
better to contribute than complaints then bugger off - no one is
forcing you to read it or reply to it.
Uthur
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 11:35:16 PM |
|
|
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have
come into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the
answer to this one is 'we don't know')
It's looking rather likely, as recent speculation on a change to
the speed of light (and/or other laws) would suggest.
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
(I'm guessing the answer to this one is 'probably so - but
very different')
I doubt it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 09:36:55 AM |
|
|
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cqvt3g$cau$1@kermit.esat.net...
This discussion seems to be generating more heat than light,
so perhaps it is better to break it into pieces - that way
we can at least see what we are arguing about more clearly.
So then, let us explore these primary points until we are all
satisfied:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the
answer to this one is 'we don't know')
First of all there is no Universe, in the sense that an entity exists which
can be objectified and encompass everything. Or if there is, prove it. The
whole argument that you have been making depends on having an object that
you call a universe. No one has ever seen one.
<snip>
--
The argument that everything had a Creator because it's too complicated, is
about as reasonable as saying that it couldn't have been created since it's
too complicated.
It's about like saying that a super flea created a dog. Then
the good fleas go to a great dog in the sky, while the bad unbelieving fleas
are scratched off into a super rug to be forever hungry. If you think dogs
weren't created by a Great Flea then you are an atheist flea.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 07:18:08 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:25:44 -0000, "Uthur"
<nospam@nospam.com> let us all know that:
This discussion seems to be generating more heat than light,
so perhaps it is better to break it into pieces - that way
we can at least see what we are arguing about more clearly.
So then, let us explore these primary points until we are all
satisfied:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the
answer to this one is 'we don't know')
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
(I'm guessing the answer to this one is 'probably so - but very different')
How about this: there is no fine-tuning to the universe. In order
to claim fine-tuning, you must FIRST present the tuner. Otherwise, you
beg the question.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 07:46:08 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <cqvt3g$cau$1@kermit.esat.net>, Uthur lept out of the
bushes shouting:
This discussion seems to be generating more heat than light, so perhaps it
is better to break it into pieces - that way we can at least see what we
are arguing about more clearly.
So then, let us explore these primary points until we are all satisfied:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and constants than
the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the answer to this one is
'we don't know')
You guessed right, we don't know.
"Fine tuned" presupposes we know the possible combinations and the odds
this combination will occur. Problem is, we don't know. For all we know,
this is the ONLY combination that can occur. Instead of "fine tuned," this
is what happens and the only thing that happens.
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist? (I'm
guessing the answer to this one is 'probably so - but very different')
We don't know.
Please try to keep the flames to a minimum this time - remember you have
nothing to lose by debating theoretical topics with total strangers on
usenet.
And if you find this whole discussion so boring that you have nothing
better to contribute than complaints then bugger off - no one is forcing
you to read it or reply to it.
Nobody's forcing you to post here either. If you don't like the responses
you're getting, you "bugger off."
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 08:21:59 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message news:pM6dnRXq1No3mEncRVn->>
And if you find this whole discussion so boring that you have nothing
better to contribute than complaints then bugger off - no one is forcing
you to read it or reply to it.
Nobody's forcing you to post here either. If you don't like the responses
you're getting, you "bugger off."
So should we simply accept the flames along with the worthwhile
posts? Some discussion that would be. I'm the one calling for
calm rational debate here. You seem to be objecting to that for
some reason.
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Little Me" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 08:34:45 AM |
|
|
So should we simply accept the flames along with the worthwhile
posts? Some discussion that would be. I'm the one calling for
calm rational debate here. You seem to be objecting to that for
some reason.
Uthur
But you are never gonna get that on a public newsgroup are you?
Ignore what you dont like, unless you want to debate what was said, I
imagine that would be helpful?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 01:36:31 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 14:21:59 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> said
in alt.atheism:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message news:pM6dnRXq1No3mEncRVn->>
And if you find this whole discussion so boring that you have nothing
better to contribute than complaints then bugger off - no one is forcing
you to read it or reply to it.
Nobody's forcing you to post here either. If you don't like the responses
you're getting, you "bugger off."
So should we simply accept the flames along with the worthwhile
posts?
Are you talking about your flames? No, we shouldn't. And aren't.
Some discussion that would be.
Sometimes - as in a poster assuming his conclusion - that's the only
discussion there *can* be.
I'm the one calling for calm rational debate here.
No, you're the one calling for everyone to assume your conclusion
prior to discussion. And arguing a point you admit you don't
understand well enough to argue.
You seem to be objecting to that for some reason.
Read the newsgroup for a month or two - every post. Then maybe - just
maybe - you'll understand how things work around here.
Then, if you don't like how things work, feel free to unsubscribe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 09:33:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:25:44 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the
answer to this one is 'we don't know')
Correct, we don't know, but if I figure it out, you can be sure I'll tell you.
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
(I'm guessing the answer to this one is 'probably so - but very different')
We don't know that either.
---------
Archdeacon Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 04:08:45 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:25:44 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
This discussion seems to be generating more heat than light,
so perhaps it is better to break it into pieces - that way
we can at least see what we are arguing about more clearly.
So then, let us explore these primary points until we are all
satisfied:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the
answer to this one is 'we don't know')
but highly unlikely.
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
(I'm guessing the answer to this one is 'probably so - but very different')
Speculation taken too far to be sensible
Please try to keep the flames to a minimum this time -
remember you have nothing to lose by debating theoretical
topics with total strangers on usenet.
Not even theoretical.
Theory is an attempt to explain something observable with
an attempt to understand it.
This is just abstract what if.... it is the province of science
fiction. Science is only interested in fact and what we can understand
of it.
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 08:58:51 AM |
|
|
Uthur wrote:
This discussion seems to be generating more heat than light,
so perhaps it is better to break it into pieces - that way
we can at least see what we are arguing about more clearly.
So then, let us explore these primary points until we are all
satisfied:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the
answer to this one is 'we don't know')
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
(I'm guessing the answer to this one is 'probably so - but very different')
I'm not so sure on the second one - life without atoms and electricity
seems unlikely - though if this is to be accepted, could such life exist
in this universe, "the soul" perhaps
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 09:58:44 PM |
|
|
Uthur wrote:
This discussion seems to be generating more heat than light,
so perhaps it is better to break it into pieces - that way
we can at least see what we are arguing about more clearly.
So then, let us explore these primary points until we are all
satisfied:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has. (I'm guessing the
answer to this one is 'we don't know')
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
(I'm guessing the answer to this one is 'probably so - but very different')
Please try to keep the flames to a minimum this time -
remember you have nothing to lose by debating theoretical
topics with total strangers on usenet.
And if you find this whole discussion so boring that you have nothing
better to contribute than complaints then bugger off - no one is
forcing you to read it or reply to it.
My guess is you won't get so many flames with this one, because you
aren't doing the non-sequitir thing this go-round.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 10:02:49 PM |
|
|
My guess is you won't get so many flames with this one, because you aren't doing the non-sequitir thing this go-round.
So do you think it is worthwhile destroying a thread with flames because
someone introduces a non sequitur? Perhaps pointing out the logical
flaw instead of flaming would be more productive - isn't that the whole
point of having a debate in the first place?
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 10:25:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
My guess is you won't get so many flames with this one, because you aren't doing the non-sequitir thing this go-round.
So do you think it is worthwhile destroying a thread with flames because
someone introduces a non sequitur? Perhaps pointing out the logical
flaw instead of flaming would be more productive - isn't that the whole
point of having a debate in the first place?
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
But you don't come here and lay down the terms for a "debate" where
there isn't one.
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 10:34:17 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:en07t01bq5ja17u7joh3jcb8g9f5satnvo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
Just because someone makes a non sequitur it does not give anyone license
to start flaming. Pointing out the flaw in logic is entirely sufficient.
But you don't come here and lay down the terms for a "debate" where
there isn't one.
Isn't one what? A debate? -- I thought that was what we were
attempting to have.
And it *is* entirely possible to engage in a civilised debate if all parties make
a little effort. As I said, if you're not interested, no one is forcing your
fingers onto the keyboard.
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 12:31:43 AM |
|
|
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cr0144$cgv$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:en07t01bq5ja17u7joh3jcb8g9f5satnvo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
Just because someone makes a non sequitur it does not give anyone license
to start flaming. Pointing out the flaw in logic is entirely sufficient.
I pointed out the flaw in your logic, and got no response.
Is that an example of what people who point out flaws in your logic can
expect to get?
You seem to respond better to flames.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 12:48:54 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:0Oydncf3EedOPU7cRVn-rw@io.com...
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cr0144$cgv$1@kermit.esat.net...
I pointed out the flaw in your logic, and got no response.
If you made a point and I didn't respond that probably meant I agreed
with what you said. I tend only to respond when I have a worthwhile
counter-point to make.
Is that an example of what people who point out flaws in your logic can
expect to get?
You seem to respond better to flames.
What exactly do you want? -- "Good point Denis, well made!"?
Well then, if it means so much: Good point Denis, well made! Whatever it was.
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 11:15:51 AM |
|
|
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cr090i$fc5$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:0Oydncf3EedOPU7cRVn-rw@io.com...
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cr0144$cgv$1@kermit.esat.net...
I pointed out the flaw in your logic, and got no response.
If you made a point and I didn't respond that probably meant I agreed
with what you said. I tend only to respond when I have a worthwhile
counter-point to make.
If you agreed with what I said, then you agree that the fine tuning argument
is bogus. If you agree with that, then why are you bringing it up again?
Is that an example of what people who point out flaws in your logic can
expect to get?
You seem to respond better to flames.
What exactly do you want? -- "Good point Denis, well made!"?
An acknowedgement that you agree would be in order. A subsequent reluctance
to pursue what you now agree is a bogus argument would be the intellectually
honest thing to do. Yet here you are again, pursuing the same argument.
Well then, if it means so much: Good point Denis, well made! Whatever it
was.
So since you agree with me that the argument from fine tuning is bogus, why
are you starting another thread to beat this supposedly dead horse?
I'm genuinely curious.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 01:48:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:48:54 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> said
in alt.atheism:
I tend only to respond when I have a worthwhile counter-point to make.
Which means that, contrary to your assertion, you're not looking for a
discussion, but a fight.
So:
You come to alt.atheism posting the "argument from fine-tuning".
You assume a god. (That's inherent in that particular argument.)
You tell us how to run our newsgroup.
You prove to be a hypocrite.
What makes you different from any other in-our-face Christian fundy
who does the same thing?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 08:55:11 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:48:54 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:0Oydncf3EedOPU7cRVn-rw@io.com...
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cr0144$cgv$1@kermit.esat.net...
I pointed out the flaw in your logic, and got no response.
If you made a point and I didn't respond that probably meant I agreed
with what you said. I tend only to respond when I have a worthwhile
counter-point to make.
Bwaaaaahahahahahahah............
That was one of Mark Harpt's lines.
Is that an example of what people who point out flaws in your logic can
expect to get?
You seem to respond better to flames.
What exactly do you want? -- "Good point Denis, well made!"?
Well then, if it means so much: Good point Denis, well made! Whatever it was.
Uthur
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 08:55:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 00:31:43 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:cr0144$cgv$1@kermit.esat.net...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:en07t01bq5ja17u7joh3jcb8g9f5satnvo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
Just because someone makes a non sequitur it does not give anyone license
to start flaming. Pointing out the flaw in logic is entirely sufficient.
I pointed out the flaw in your logic, and got no response.
So did I while adding a few choice words.
He focused entirely on the perceived insult and totally ignored the
rest of it.
Is that an example of what people who point out flaws in your logic can
expect to get?
You seem to respond better to flames.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 01:40:57 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:34:17 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> said
in alt.atheism:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:en07t01bq5ja17u7joh3jcb8g9f5satnvo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
Just because someone makes a non sequitur it does not give anyone license
to start flaming.
In alt.atheism one doesn't need any "license" to start flaming. Just
a target. And you provided such a nice one.
But you don't come here and lay down the terms for a "debate" where
there isn't one.
Isn't one what? A debate? -- I thought that was what we were
attempting to have.
No, you're attempting to rehash a point that was shown to be a stupid
assertion decades ago. There's no "debate" involved - your initial
assumption is wrong, so you have no argument.
And it *is* entirely possible to engage in a civilised debate if all parties make
a little effort. As I said, if you're not interested, no one is forcing your
fingers onto the keyboard.
And if you don't like the turn the thread is taking, no one is forcing
you to continue to participate in it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 10:39:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:34:17 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:en07t01bq5ja17u7joh3jcb8g9f5satnvo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
Just because someone makes a non sequitur it does not give anyone license
to start flaming. Pointing out the flaw in logic is entirely sufficient.
But you don't come here and lay down the terms for a "debate" where
there isn't one.
Isn't one what? A debate? -- I thought that was what we were
attempting to have.
We?
You weren't.
And it *is* entirely possible to engage in a civilised debate if all parties make
a little effort. As I said, if you're not interested, no one is forcing your
fingers onto the keyboard.
Except that you didn't.
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 10:45:51 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ch17t0hdchjigeq49l65rv7ig6alnmnn8g@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:34:17 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:en07t01bq5ja17u7joh3jcb8g9f5satnvo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
Just because someone makes a non sequitur it does not give anyone license
to start flaming. Pointing out the flaw in logic is entirely sufficient.
But you don't come here and lay down the terms for a "debate" where
there isn't one.
Isn't one what? A debate? -- I thought that was what we were
attempting to have.
We?
You weren't.
And it *is* entirely possible to engage in a civilised debate if all parties make
a little effort. As I said, if you're not interested, no one is forcing your
fingers onto the keyboard.
Except that you didn't.
You still seem to be attempting to start an argument with me. I really don't see
why you continue with this line of posting. If you're not actually interested in the
subject at hand, do us all a favour an don't bother posting at all.
Also, It may surprise you to learn this, but us having a disagreement about
some arbitrary topic on usenet doesn't actually damage you in any way. You
might try taking this whole 'anonymous social interaction' thing a tad less seriously.
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 11:08:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:45:51 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ch17t0hdchjigeq49l65rv7ig6alnmnn8g@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:34:17 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:en07t01bq5ja17u7joh3jcb8g9f5satnvo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
Just because someone makes a non sequitur it does not give anyone license
to start flaming. Pointing out the flaw in logic is entirely sufficient.
But you don't come here and lay down the terms for a "debate" where
there isn't one.
Isn't one what? A debate? -- I thought that was what we were
attempting to have.
We?
You weren't.
And it *is* entirely possible to engage in a civilised debate if all parties make
a little effort. As I said, if you're not interested, no one is forcing your
fingers onto the keyboard.
Except that you didn't.
You still seem to be attempting to start an argument with me.
No he isn't! ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
29 Dec 2004 11:52:17 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:45:51 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:ch17t0hdchjigeq49l65rv7ig6alnmnn8g@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:34:17 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:en07t01bq5ja17u7joh3jcb8g9f5satnvo@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:02:49 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
We did both. But you ignored where it pointed out that you were wrong.
Just because someone makes a non sequitur it does not give anyone license
to start flaming. Pointing out the flaw in logic is entirely sufficient.
But you don't come here and lay down the terms for a "debate" where
there isn't one.
Isn't one what? A debate? -- I thought that was what we were
attempting to have.
We?
You weren't.
And it *is* entirely possible to engage in a civilised debate if all parties make
a little effort. As I said, if you're not interested, no one is forcing your
fingers onto the keyboard.
Except that you didn't.
You still seem to be attempting to start an argument with me. I really don't see
why you continue with this line of posting. If you're not actually interested in the
subject at hand, do us all a favour an don't bother posting at all.
No, I'm not.
You came here with some obvious fallacies.
And finished up with the "conclusion" that the only option was to
believe in the voices in a Christian's head.
In short, you were in-our-face stupid.
Also, It may surprise you to learn this, but us having a disagreement about
some arbitrary topic on usenet doesn't actually damage you in any way. You
might try taking this whole 'anonymous social interaction' thing a tad less seriously.
You really are a stupid, nasty piece of work, aren't you?
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 12:41:06 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wittered in message news:sn57t09h3e6mf1gieroijipnf9oplgi4g6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:45:51 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
You still seem to be attempting to start an argument with me.
No, I'm not.
In short, you were in-our-face stupid.
How can you reconcile not wanting to start an argument with
calling me 'in-our-face stupid'? Are you even thinking
about what you are posting at this point?
You really are a stupid, nasty piece of work, aren't you?
Is this another attempt *not* to start an argument? You know,
you're going to give yourself a heart attack carrying on like this
old bean...
I'm not going to lower myself to the pathetic level of ad-hominem
discourse you so enjoy. Instead I will repeat the topics raised for
discussion:
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has.
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
Address them if you are interested. Otherwise, don't let the door hit
you in the ***** on your way out etc etc...
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 07:58:45 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <cr08hu$f78$1@kermit.esat.net>, Uthur lept out of the
bushes shouting:
Address them if you are interested. Otherwise, don't let the door hit you
in the ***** on your way out etc etc...
Okay, Skippy, you need to learn something about Usenet rather than blaming
other people for your own fumbles. First of all, don't barge into any
newsgroup community and tell the regulars to "bugger off" when you don't
like their responses. THAT is a guaranteed flame war. Barge into *any
community and start telling people how things are going to be means YOU
are looking for a fight.
Not to mention, why did you gravitate to the part of the thread where the
"flame" potential existed if that's *not what you came looking for?
Besides, I just skimmed through the first thread. You're the one with the
chip on your shoulder.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Being surprised at the fact that the universe
is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being
surprised at how well it fits its hole"
-- Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 08:55:10 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:41:06 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wittered in message news:sn57t09h3e6mf1gieroijipnf9oplgi4g6@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 04:45:51 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
You still seem to be attempting to start an argument with me.
No, I'm not.
In short, you were in-our-face stupid.
How can you reconcile not wanting to start an argument with
calling me 'in-our-face stupid'? Are you even thinking
about what you are posting at this point?
If you don't like it, don't be in-our-face stupdid and it won't be
pointed out.
BTW you just added whining hypocrisy to the list.
You really are a stupid, nasty piece of work, aren't you?
Is this another attempt *not* to start an argument? You know,
you're going to give yourself a heart attack carrying on like this
old bean...
Pretends the deliberate liar who is trolling for flames.
I'm not going to lower myself to the pathetic level of ad-hominem
discourse you so enjoy. Instead I will repeat the topics raised for
discussion:
Pretends the lying hypocrite.
1) Was it actually possible in theory for our universe to have come
into existence with different fundamental forces and
constants than the ones it currently has.
2) If the universe did not have the precise fundamental forces
and constants that it does, could life of any sort exist?
They're not "topics raised for discussion". You started off with
questions loaded with unjustified presumptions.
We need to understand your presumptions and how will interpret the "we
don't know" responses through your god-blinders, before they can be
answered.
And you need to make the effort to listen to explanations.
If you don't like words added on that describe yourself, ignore them.
BUT DON'T IGNORE THE MEAT OF THE RESPONSES.
Address them if you are interested. Otherwise, don't let the door hit
you in the ***** on your way out etc etc...
Whines the hypocrite who crashed the group with his timeworn fallacies
that insult the intelligence, to atheists in their own newsgroup.
Step aside from all your god-preconceptions and approach it from first
principles - which is the only honest way to do it.
Come up with questions that aren't loaded with these preconceptions.
THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DISCUSS.
And try not to be such a hypocrite.
Give genuine reasons for asking these questions WITHOUT ANY
PRECONCEPTIONS
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uthur" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 11:07:55 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:po38t0h534g0j39a2776u0a06cdphlgeg8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:41:06 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
If you don't like it, don't be in-our-face stupdid and it won't be
pointed out.
Tell me this if you're so smart: Just how stupid do you have to be to
misspell 'stupid'? After you figure that out brainiac, get you're ***** back on
topic or ***** !
Uthur
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: argument from a fine-tuned universe (REDUX) |
30 Dec 2004 01:44:16 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:07:55 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> said
in alt.atheism:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:po38t0h534g0j39a2776u0a06cdphlgeg8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 06:41:06 -0000, "Uthur" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
If you don't like it, don't be in-our-face stupdid and it won't be
pointed out.
Tell me this if you're so smart: Just how stupid do you have to be to
misspell 'stupid'? After you figure that out brainiac, get you're ***** back on
topic or ***** !
About as stupid as you have to be to misspell 'your', I'd guess.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
