Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[psionl0]

I hate to break it to you but these assertions are not making you sound like you understand scientific theories, scientific facts, or the theory of evolution.

Says the person who is trying to sound like they understand scientific theories, scientific facts, or the theory of evolution.

A scientific fact in science has a specific definition. I'm not going to look it up for you, it's easy to find. Last time I tried to give you some answers you falsely claimed you had said just what I had posted. Maybe if you'd actually look it up you could learn something.

So you can't define "scientific fact". Got it.

As for "sound scientific principles" that sounds like what a kid would answer when called on in class trying to hoodwink the teacher into believing they'd done the assignment.

Addressing the arguer is much easier than analyzing the flaws in their argument.

What sound scientific principles? Your computer algorithm example was seriously wanting.

That's two statements I made that are pro-evolution which you disagree with. You appear to be arguing that either you believe that evolution is not a good scientific theory or you think that evolutionary algorithms are not used in computer aided designs.

Just name the principles, thank you. Or tell us specifically what these principles are when it comes to evolution theory. You cannot hoodwink anyone here.

That's the third time you have disagreed with evolutionary theory in the one post.

You are not the first poster who has been prepared to deny everything they have believed in the past just to disagree with me.

 

[Leumas]

Since I am not arguing for any of this, the answer to all of these challenges is "no".

My point was that if there is no ID then true randomness must exist and that hasn't been proven. If that leaves a gap in which an evangelist might try to slip in a god then that is not my problem.

Yes it has... that you refuse to actually look at the evidence or the facts of reality does not make your false claim true.

And since you do not believe in randomness then you must also believe that ID is true according to your above statement.

If you believe ID is true then you believe in god... YOU... not evangelicals.

So now... state clearly and without further obfuscation... that you do not

• Believe ID is true
• God ("intelligent forces") Did it
• You reject evolution
• God ("intelligent forces") fixed and determined the universe

Any unclear and obfuscating playing with words is tantamount to you admitting the above... namely you believe God Did It is the reality of things.

 

[Leumas]

I hate to break it to you but these assertions are not making you sound like you understand scientific theories, scientific facts, or the theory of evolution.

A scientific fact in science has a specific definition. I'm not going to look it up for you, it's easy to find. Last time I tried to give you some answers you falsely claimed you had said just what I had posted. Maybe if you'd actually look it up you could learn something.

As for "sound scientific principles" that sounds like what a kid would answer when called on in class trying to hoodwink the teacher into believing they'd done the assignment.

What sound scientific principles? Your computer algorithm example was seriously wanting.

Just name the principles, thank you. Or tell us specifically what these principles are when it comes to evolution theory. You cannot hoodwink anyone here.

Exactly!!!

 

[psionl0]

Why?

Because the forces are not intelligent.

 

[psionl0]

Prove me wrong by for once actually saying things without obfuscation... what is randomness??? Let's see if you get it right.

Who is going to judge my answer? You don't qualify.

 

[arthwollipot]

Because the forces are not intelligent.

That doesn't mean that they must be random.

 

[Leumas]

Just name the principles, thank you. Or tell us specifically what these principles are when it comes to evolution theory. You cannot hoodwink anyone here.

That's the third time you have disagreed with evolutionary theory in the one post.

WOW...

This must be the most amazing

... projection.

tell me about...

You must be functionally illiterate if that is what you read into my posts that post

WOW... really just WOW!!!!

 

[acbytesla]

Science did not prove the falseness of the unfalsifiable... science proved that the universe is indeterministic...

Claiming that the universe is deterministic is like claiming Evolution is not fact... science every day shows that evolution is a fact... anyone who denies that is denying science.

Science has demonstrated that the universe is indeterministic... and anyone who wants to show it is deterministic needs to prove that... not just take it as a null hypothesis because benighted minds thought it was in the past just like they used to think god created life.

Understand that I agree with you. The universe etc is not the result of a conscious mind. It is not deterministic. There are random forces. Science has certainly proved that to my satisfaction. It should also be enough for any thinking educated mind.

Psion and other god believers are as you said, shrugging the burden of proof. It is dishonest. But I also know that science can not disprove the null statement or anything supernatural. It can't disprove the make believe.

But then, why should it have to? Why should it have to disprove the nonexistent?

 

[Leumas]

Who is going to judge my answer? You don't qualify.

Yup... obfuscation... so you have just conceded that

...
Any unclear and obfuscating playing with words is tantamount to you admitting the above... namely you believe God Did It is the reality of things.

...
Unless you answer clearly affirming or denying... then you are admitting that...

• You believe in "intelligent forces" (a.k.a. God(s))
• You think this god is the determiner of the deterministic universe
• You believe there is no randomness because this God(s) determined and fixed everything
• You believe this god created life on earth

Now let's see how you will respond... remember any obfuscation is an admittance of the above assertions.

 

[Leumas]

Understand that I agree with you. The universe etc is not the result of a conscious mind. It is not deterministic. There are random forces. Science has certainly proved that to my satisfaction. It should also be enough for any thinking educated mind.

Psion and other god believers are as you said, shrugging the burden of proof. It is dishonest.

Indeed!!!

But I also know that science can not disprove the null statement or anything supernatural. It can't disprove the make believe.

Yes... but it does not need to disprove make belief... "God did it" disproves itself the moment it cannot be proven... it does not need to be disproven... it is self-debunking all by itself... by not being proven it is disproven.

But then, why should it have to? Why should it have to disprove the nonexistent?

Exactly... no need at all... the non-existence is itself proof of the non-existence... until the existence is proven the null hypothesis is non-existence.

To disprove the null hypothesis one needs to prove the existence... until they do that, the null hypothesis (no god) is the only rational sane logical scientific and realistic fact.

 

[acbytesla]

Since I am not arguing for any of this, the answer to all of these challenges is "no".

My point was that if there is no ID then true randomness must exist and that hasn't been proven. If that leaves a gap in which an evangelist might try to slip in a god then that is not my problem.

Yes you are.

Anything that is deterministic or not random requires a demonstration of a conscious being. It's built into the definition of those words.

You are arguing that a being made a conscious effort that led to reality. That gravity, quantum entanglement, the nature of matter, energy and life are all the result of a conscious undetectable mind. That this is all true despite an absence of evidence or even the contradiction of evidence.

 

[psionl0]

My point was that IF there is no ID . . . . .

Yes you are.

Anything that is deterministic or not random requires a demonstration of a conscious being. It's built into the definition of those words.

You are arguing that a being made a conscious effort that led to reality. That gravity, quantum entanglement, the nature of matter, energy and life are all the result of a conscious undetectable mind. That this is all true despite an absence of evidence or even the contradiction of evidence.

Your post is superfluous because there is an important caveat in my post.

 

[psionl0]

That doesn't mean that they must be random.

Why not?

 

[acbytesla]

Your post is superfluous because there is an important caveat in my post.

Your caveat doesn't negate it. It informs your argument. If ID isn't real then you must prove that the invisible, undetectable unfalsifiable conscious being doesn’t exist. Or in your words "random."

 

[Leumas]

Your post is superfluous because there is an important caveat in my post.

The fact that you are incessantly wrangling for ID but obfuscating left right and center to not be pinned down on anything is proof that you have just conceded that

...
Any unclear and obfuscating playing with words is tantamount to you admitting the above... namely you believe God Did It is the reality of things.

...
Unless you answer clearly affirming or denying... then you are admitting that...

• You believe in "intelligent forces" (a.k.a. God(s))
• You think this god is the determiner of the deterministic universe
• You believe there is no randomness because this God(s) determined and fixed everything
• You believe this god created life on earth

Now let's see how you will respond... remember any obfuscation is an admittance of the above assertions.

 

[psionl0]

Your caveat doesn't negate it. It informs your argument. If ID isn't real then you must prove that the invisible, undetectable unfalsifiable conscious being doesn’t exist. Or in your words "random." true randomness must exist and that hasn't been proven.

ftfy.

I don't understand this mentality of attributing words to me that I didn't post just so that you can disagree with me.

 

[Leumas]

ftfy.

I don't understand this mentality of attributing words to me that I didn't post just so that you can disagree with me.

Incessantly repeating lies will never make them true... randomness is proven... and you have been shown that... your refusal to look at that is not justification for continually denying reality and scientific facts.

Your incessant denial of randomness is at the same level of incessant denial of evolution by creationists.


.

 

[Leumas]

I don't understand this mentality of attributing words to me that I didn't post just so that you can disagree with me.

Well then... come out and declare what you are actually saying...

Until you stop the double talk and obfuscation...

Your posts so far prove that you believe God Did It and that is why you are tirelessly wrangling for ID and "intelligent forces" and determinism and denying scientific facts.​

 

[psionl0]

Incessantly repeating lies will never make them true.

But you do it anyway.

Your incessant denial of randomness is the same level of incessant denial of evolution by creationists.

Case in point. By willfully and consistently deleting "IF" from my posts you make them appear to be totally different.

 

[Leumas]

But you do it anyway.


Case in point. By willfully deleting "IF" from my posts you make them appear to be totally different.

More obfuscation and double talk thus proving that you deny science and believe God Did It.


And by the way... here is another proof

No projection... your incessant persistent posts here and elsewhere prove that you have no idea about what randomness is.

Prove me wrong by for once actually saying things without obfuscation... what is randomness??? Let's see if you get it right.