| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"AL" |
| Date: |
29 Sep 2006 10:08:42 AM |
| Object: |
Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
.
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
30 Sep 2006 03:30:52 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:47:12 GMT, "ike milligan"
<accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote:
- Refer: <k8jTg.4484$o71.3449@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
"AL" <aavery6801@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1159554437.560029.214260@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The
1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will-
to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and
has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in
any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism
is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
Where there's a will there's a won't.
Where there's a Will, there's a grasping family.
Where there's a will there's a lawyer
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
29 Sep 2006 03:33:21 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
29 Sep 2006 03:47:48 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
29 Sep 2006 04:17:33 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
The subject you were just discussing was will, if you care to read the
exchange still pasted above. And,yYou introduced the subject in your
first post ("God is the concept of "entity" with a will"). You may have
introduced other subjects, but will was one of them. And then you
proceeded to say "will" was barely discussble. Maybe you were too busy
looking at yourself in a dirty mirror. Holy *****, you people are
getting weirder all the time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
29 Sep 2006 04:29:47 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 08:18:20 AM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 10:15:38 AM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 12:20:20 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
Neil, through a somewhat flawed celestial wireless consortium, I have
been considering the absurdity of protiolytic peptide anticipatory
perturbation capacity and non purposeful a dynamic destruction of
variation mechanisms. In order for the variation mechanism to sustain
in space time for a period sufficient to introduce itself to sense
reality, (where we gather empirical data) would not the variation
mechanism need the likely design facility of dynamic purposeful
construction?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 12:51:28 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
Neil, through a somewhat flawed celestial wireless consortium, I have
been considering the absurdity of protiolytic peptide anticipatory
perturbation capacity and non purposeful a dynamic destruction of
variation mechanisms. In order for the variation mechanism to sustain
in space time for a period sufficient to introduce itself to sense
reality, (where we gather empirical data) would not the variation
mechanism need the likely design facility of dynamic purposeful
construction?
Ha ha. You're disingenuously and yet unintentionally funny. The answer
is no, if you are implying that the dynamic purposeful constructor has
supernatural qualities. If the variation mechanism is mechanical (which
is probably implied by the word "mechanism") then the dynamically
purposeful constructor is organic, and it's identity can be traced. An
organic variation mechanism evolved that had enough intelligence to
produce the mechanical variation mechanism. Evolution is a natural
process that requires no exterior dynamic purposeful constructor. So
the mechanical variation mechanism is a byproduct of the intelligent
organic variaton mechanism and can be said to be a part of a natural
process, no surpernatural dynamic purposeful constructor required. Holy
*****, what total *****. Don't you ever get embarrassed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 01:04:46 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
Neil, through a somewhat flawed celestial wireless consortium, I have
been considering the absurdity of protiolytic peptide anticipatory
perturbation capacity and non purposeful a dynamic destruction of
variation mechanisms. In order for the variation mechanism to sustain
in space time for a period sufficient to introduce itself to sense
reality, (where we gather empirical data) would not the variation
mechanism need the likely design facility of dynamic purposeful
construction?
Ha ha. You're disingenuously and yet unintentionally funny. The answer
is no, if you are implying that the dynamic purposeful constructor has
supernatural qualities. If the variation mechanism is mechanical (which
is probably implied by the word "mechanism") then the dynamically
purposeful constructor is organic, and it's identity can be traced. An
organic variation mechanism evolved that had enough intelligence to
produce the mechanical variation mechanism. Evolution is a natural
process that requires no exterior dynamic purposeful constructor. So
the mechanical variation mechanism is a byproduct of the intelligent
organic variaton mechanism and can be said to be a part of a natural
process, no surpernatural dynamic purposeful constructor required. Holy
*****, what total *****. Don't you ever get embarrassed?
Organi, organic, natural, natural. Hide in the buckwheat. Holy *****
don't you ever get tired of banging around in the same little box of
Darwin Cerial screaming:
Nature goes on forever small!
Nature goes on forever small!
Beneath the atoms, quarks and all!
Pre quantum, pre chaos..........it's ....just......organic........not
intelligent, no! No analytic bias....only random....organic.. er.....no
bias in the universe........just organic....
Where is my irreducable information?
Is it outside this wall?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 01:27:10 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
Neil, through a somewhat flawed celestial wireless consortium, I have
been considering the absurdity of protiolytic peptide anticipatory
perturbation capacity and non purposeful a dynamic destruction of
variation mechanisms. In order for the variation mechanism to sustain
in space time for a period sufficient to introduce itself to sense
reality, (where we gather empirical data) would not the variation
mechanism need the likely design facility of dynamic purposeful
construction?
Ha ha. You're disingenuously and yet unintentionally funny. The answer
is no, if you are implying that the dynamic purposeful constructor has
supernatural qualities. If the variation mechanism is mechanical (which
is probably implied by the word "mechanism") then the dynamically
purposeful constructor is organic, and it's identity can be traced. An
organic variation mechanism evolved that had enough intelligence to
produce the mechanical variation mechanism. Evolution is a natural
process that requires no exterior dynamic purposeful constructor. So
the mechanical variation mechanism is a byproduct of the ---------------intelligent
organic variaton mechanism ----------and can be said to be a part of a natural
process, no surpernatural dynamic purposeful constructor required. Holy
*****, what total *****. Don't you ever get embarrassed?
Organi, organic, natural, natural. Hide in the buckwheat. Holy *****
don't you ever get tired of banging around in the same little box of
Darwin Cerial screaming:
Nature goes on forever small!
Nature goes on forever small!
Beneath the atoms, quarks and all!
Pre quantum, pre chaos..........it's ....just......organic........not
intelligent, no! No analytic bias....only random....organic.. er.....no
bias in the universe........just organic....
Where is my irreducable information?
Is it outside this wall?
So there is an intelligent variation mechanisim.-- But absolutly no
dynamic contructor. Tell me this is not all semantics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 01:45:02 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
Neil, through a somewhat flawed celestial wireless consortium, I have
been considering the absurdity of protiolytic peptide anticipatory
perturbation capacity and non purposeful a dynamic destruction of
variation mechanisms. In order for the variation mechanism to sustain
in space time for a period sufficient to introduce itself to sense
reality, (where we gather empirical data) would not the variation
mechanism need the likely design facility of dynamic purposeful
construction?
Ha ha. You're disingenuously and yet unintentionally funny. The answer
is no, if you are implying that the dynamic purposeful constructor has
supernatural qualities. If the variation mechanism is mechanical (which
is probably implied by the word "mechanism") then the dynamically
purposeful constructor is organic, and it's identity can be traced. An
organic variation mechanism evolved that had enough intelligence to
produce the mechanical variation mechanism. Evolution is a natural
process that requires no exterior dynamic purposeful constructor. So
the mechanical variation mechanism is a byproduct of the ---------------intelligent
organic variaton mechanism ----------and can be said to be a part of a natural
process, no surpernatural dynamic purposeful constructor required. Holy
*****, what total *****. Don't you ever get embarrassed?
Organi, organic, natural, natural. Hide in the buckwheat. Holy *****
don't you ever get tired of banging around in the same little box of
Darwin Cerial screaming:
Nature goes on forever small!
Nature goes on forever small!
Beneath the atoms, quarks and all!
Pre quantum, pre chaos..........it's ....just......organic........not
intelligent, no! No analytic bias....only random....organic.. er.....no
bias in the universe........just organic....
Where is my irreducable information?
Is it outside this wall?
So there is an intelligent variation mechanisim.-- But absolutly no
dynamic contructor. Tell me this is not all semantics.
Hey, you started talking like that, don't complain about semantics.
Organic intelligent variation mechanism = (let's pick) humans, since
that's out claim to fame as a species. Dynamic constructor = god. Since
there are reams of evidence that humans evolved naturally, and since
the evolution process does not require a god, and since there is no
evidence for a god in the first place, there is no need ot postulate a
god. There is absolutely no "dynamic constructor." Everything works
just fine without it.
You can dress the toad up in women's clothing but it's still a toad.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 03:44:02 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
Neil, through a somewhat flawed celestial wireless consortium, I have
been considering the absurdity of protiolytic peptide anticipatory
perturbation capacity and non purposeful a dynamic destruction of
variation mechanisms. In order for the variation mechanism to sustain
in space time for a period sufficient to introduce itself to sense
reality, (where we gather empirical data) would not the variation
mechanism need the likely design facility of dynamic purposeful
construction?
Ha ha. You're disingenuously and yet unintentionally funny. The answer
is no, if you are implying that the dynamic purposeful constructor has
supernatural qualities. If the variation mechanism is mechanical (which
is probably implied by the word "mechanism") then the dynamically
purposeful constructor is organic, and it's identity can be traced. An
organic variation mechanism evolved that had enough intelligence to
produce the mechanical variation mechanism. Evolution is a natural
process that requires no exterior dynamic purposeful constructor. So
the mechanical variation mechanism is a byproduct of the ---------------intelligent
organic variaton mechanism ----------and can be said to be a part of a natural
process, no surpernatural dynamic purposeful constructor required. Holy
*****, what total *****. Don't you ever get embarrassed?
Organi, organic, natural, natural. Hide in the buckwheat. Holy *****
don't you ever get tired of banging around in the same little box of
Darwin Cerial screaming:
Nature goes on forever small!
Nature goes on forever small!
Beneath the atoms, quarks and all!
Pre quantum, pre chaos..........it's ....just......organic........not
intelligent, no! No analytic bias....only random....organic.. er.....no
bias in the universe........just organic....
Where is my irreducable information?
Is it outside this wall?
So there is an intelligent variation mechanisim.-- But absolutly no
dynamic contructor. Tell me this is not all semantics.
Hey, you started talking like that, don't complain about semantics.
Organic intelligent variation mechanism = (let's pick) humans, since
that's out claim to fame as a species. Dynamic constructor = god. Since
there are reams of evidence that humans evolved naturally, and since
the evolution process does not require a god, and since there is no
evidence for a god in the first place, there is no need ot postulate a
god. There is absolutely no "dynamic constructor." Everything works
just fine without it.
You can dress the toad up in women's clothing but it's still a toad.
The evolution (process) does not require a god. There is absolutely
no.......I'm sorry, I'm talking to a concrete dogmatist, having escaped
the bonds of religion, landing on another pile of dogma. Mad as hell,
and defensive. This is all a joke to me. I'm an atheist/agnostic. To
totally proclain atheism as a limited reasoning being to me is ignorant
and shallow. I bring up the god stuff here as an antagonist. When I see
smugness I tend to take a dump in the middle of it. --and sure enough,
it draws flies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 04:44:51 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
Neil, through a somewhat flawed celestial wireless consortium, I have
been considering the absurdity of protiolytic peptide anticipatory
perturbation capacity and non purposeful a dynamic destruction of
variation mechanisms. In order for the variation mechanism to sustain
in space time for a period sufficient to introduce itself to sense
reality, (where we gather empirical data) would not the variation
mechanism need the likely design facility of dynamic purposeful
construction?
Ha ha. You're disingenuously and yet unintentionally funny. The answer
is no, if you are implying that the dynamic purposeful constructor has
supernatural qualities. If the variation mechanism is mechanical (which
is probably implied by the word "mechanism") then the dynamically
purposeful constructor is organic, and it's identity can be traced. An
organic variation mechanism evolved that had enough intelligence to
produce the mechanical variation mechanism. Evolution is a natural
process that requires no exterior dynamic purposeful constructor. So
the mechanical variation mechanism is a byproduct of the ---------------intelligent
organic variaton mechanism ----------and can be said to be a part of a natural
process, no surpernatural dynamic purposeful constructor required. Holy
*****, what total *****. Don't you ever get embarrassed?
Organi, organic, natural, natural. Hide in the buckwheat. Holy *****
don't you ever get tired of banging around in the same little box of
Darwin Cerial screaming:
Nature goes on forever small!
Nature goes on forever small!
Beneath the atoms, quarks and all!
Pre quantum, pre chaos..........it's ....just......organic........not
intelligent, no! No analytic bias....only random....organic.. er.....no
bias in the universe........just organic....
Where is my irreducable information?
Is it outside this wall?
So there is an intelligent variation mechanisim.-- But absolutly no
dynamic contructor. Tell me this is not all semantics.
Hey, you started talking like that, don't complain about semantics.
Organic intelligent variation mechanism = (let's pick) humans, since
that's out claim to fame as a species. Dynamic constructor = god. Since
there are reams of evidence that humans evolved naturally, and since
the evolution process does not require a god, and since there is no
evidence for a god in the first place, there is no need ot postulate a
god. There is absolutely no "dynamic constructor." Everything works
just fine without it.
You can dress the toad up in women's clothing but it's still a toad.
The evolution (process) does not require a god. There is absolutely
no.......I'm sorry, I'm talking to a concrete dogmatist, having escaped
the bonds of religion, landing on another pile of dogma.
Hey man, I've got nothing against fiction, as long as it isn't confused
with reality.
Mad as hell,
and defensive.
Nice try. In reality, I think you're hilarious and I'm being
thouroughly entertained.
This is all a joke to me. I'm an atheist/agnostic. To
totally proclain atheism as a limited reasoning being to me is ignorant
and shallow. I bring up the god stuff here as an antagonist. When I see
smugness I tend to take a dump in the middle of it. --and sure enough,
it draws flies.
*****. You're a confused theist with a gigantic ego. No one's smug
but you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
02 Oct 2006 01:31:24 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
What a cop out. Introduce a subject (will), and then say the subject is
barely discussable as soon as you are cornered.
And Lard Tunderin' Jaysus. It's "through a glass, darkly," not through
a LOOKING glass. A looking glass is a mirror, which kinda changes
(ironically, in your case) the whole meaning of the phrase. Using tired
old evangelical cliches is hardly a good way to argue physics, anyway.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
The subject was on probability not will, snorf. The intro came with a
link nobody read.
This is the beginning of your intro:
"Some interesting light is thrown on the nature of causation, the
origin of the universe, and arguments for atheism if we address the
question: Is it logically possible that the universe has an originating
divine cause?
I think that virtually all contemporary theists, agnostics and atheists
believe this is logically possible."
BZZZZZZZZZtttt...
I think that right off the bat this statement is wrong, besides the
fact that it is an argumentum ad populum. First of all, all theists and
agnostics by definition think the divine origin is possible, so that's
kinda irrelevant, don't you think? Secondly, there are plenty of
atheists (like me) who think that the idea of the supernatural and the
divine as presented in religious texts defies the laws of physics. So
it is not true that virtually all people believe divine creation is
possible. I think it's impossible and absurd. Now I'll go back to your
lame link and read some more unfounded assertions. Sheeeesh.
Al wrote:
Show me the probability of a virus ever discussing the universe and
arguing concepts of "will" and "probability" with people all over the
earth and I will show you the existance of an intelligent design
irreducable and generally absurd in the eyes of human perception.
You are like a human Mexican Jumping Bean with the way you switch
subjects. You have a black belt in non sequiturs (those are fallacies,
by the way, we can add that to your list of them. Just so you realize,
fallacies are things you should try to avoid when you argue, they make
you seem ignorant). And you need grammar lessons (and spelling), have a
look at your last sentence and tell me your conjunction makes any
sense. Who/what is the object of your latest argumentum ad populum
fallacy? But I'll try to play along anyway.
Guess what? We share common ancestors with every living thing on Earth,
including viruses. Viruses HAVE evolved to produce organisms that can
discuss the concepts of will and probabiity. That would be you and I. I
can show you that we evolved from viruses (or at least some similar
single celled parasite), therefore the probablility of this occuring,
in retrospect, was 100%. Maybe life on any planet, if it survives long
enough, will evolve to include mobile intelligent parasites like us.
Now go ahead and show us there was an intelligent designer involved in
this process like you promised. Show me your "proof" of an intelligent
designer and I will show you the existence of a confused theist.
Neil, through a somewhat flawed celestial wireless consortium, I have
been considering the absurdity of protiolytic peptide anticipatory
perturbation capacity and non purposeful a dynamic destruction of
variation mechanisms. In order for the variation mechanism to sustain
in space time for a period sufficient to introduce itself to sense
reality, (where we gather empirical data) would not the variation
mechanism need the likely design facility of dynamic purposeful
construction?
Ha ha. You're disingenuously and yet unintentionally funny. The answer
is no, if you are implying that the dynamic purposeful constructor has
supernatural qualities. If the variation mechanism is mechanical (which
is probably implied by the word "mechanism") then the dynamically
purposeful constructor is organic, and it's identity can be traced. An
organic variation mechanism evolved that had enough intelligence to
produce the mechanical variation mechanism. Evolution is a natural
process that requires no exterior dynamic purposeful constructor. So
the mechanical variation mechanism is a byproduct of the intelligent
organic variaton mechanism and can be said to be a part of a natural
process, no surpernatural dynamic purposeful constructor required. Holy
*****, what total *****. Don't you ever get embarrassed?
Organi, organic, natural, natural. Hide in the buckwheat. Holy *****
don't you ever get tired of banging around in the same little box of
Darwin Cerial screaming:
Nature goes on forever small!
Nature goes on forever small!
Beneath the atoms, quarks and all!
Pre quantum, pre chaos..........it's ....just......organic........not
intelligent, no! No analytic bias....only random....organic.. er.....no
bias in the universe........just organic....
You need to look up wnat the word organic means.
So obtuse bafflegab didn't work, now you're resorting to Creative
Writing 101 strawman poetry? You might try intellectual honesty instead
of mental masturbation someday.
Where is my irreducable information?
Is it outside this wall?
Zzzzzzzzzz. My Grandma writes better poetry than that, and she's dead.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "aversiveness" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
29 Sep 2006 02:42:05 PM |
|
|
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
Says who? If theres a God, existance is optional. We know squat.
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
A "god" is a human notion as well. Actually, the concept of "will" is
more real than "god" because we can measure the effect of human "will".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
29 Sep 2006 09:19:20 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 11:27:17 -0700, "AL" <aavery6801@yahoo.com> wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
Really? Tell me how something can have a will if it doesn't exist.
A "will" is a human notion barely discussable. We see through a looking
glass, darkly.
If there is a will there is a will not to will with an all omnipotent
being.
Tell the Nurse not to give you generic medication from the ACME
Drug Store.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheism 99% probable. God 1% probable ...God wins. |
29 Sep 2006 05:47:46 PM |
|
|
On 29 Sep 2006 09:05:55 -0700, "Conspiracy of Doves"
<mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote:
AL wrote:
Conspiracy of Doves wrote:
AL wrote:
Based on the outside chanse that God is, against a more logical
possibility that Athiesm actually is; God wins every time. The 1%
probility God is the concept of "entity" with a will- to -exist.
99.99999% Atheism probability is only a concept of non God and has no
will to exist or not exist. It is 100% notion and 0% "being" in any
circumstance of occurance. God is potential ocurrance. Atheism is not.
And why does that make god win?
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/causation.html
Because if there is God, God has will, and God with will, wills to
exist with the 1% which is sufficient.
99 parts Atheism is 99 parts nothing. 99x0 or 99.9999999999999x0 is
zero.
If god exists, then he doesn't HAVE to will himself to exist. He
already exists. If god doesn't exist, then he can't will himself to
exist because he doesn't have will.
Nothing can will itself to exist. If it has will, then it already
exists.
Things either exist or they don't. The 1% or 99% refers to OUR
knowledge or lack of knowledge of whether they exist or not.
How 'bout this: Atheists *do exist, and that can be proven by the mere
existence of this post. You exist but your God doesn't. There is no
1%.
Atheists are simply naturally born and developed people who will not
be conned by religious nonsense. Atheists don't even need 0.0% because
we are *not chance: we are here, very well alive. The religionists may
have been born pure but born into a diseased family. You lose.
I can help you.
It's our survival,folks.Time to get nasty and mean it.
Ignore criticism,it's what the enemy feeds on.
Action, folks, Life takes action. Let's roll.
SunYata from the USA !!!!
;-)
.
|
|
| |
