Believer vs. Believer

[epix]

No, the gods were made up long before the bronze-age goat herders came along, simply as a way for humans to attempt to understand and explain their universe. The bronze-age goat herders just embellished the stories and wrote them down, as other cultures did before and after. It's unfortunate that some still buy that crap even today, though, don't you think?

Where is the evidence that the human ancestry were attempting to understand and explain their universe? It's a mere speculation on the part of those who can't escape the box they are living in. And the gullible buy the nonsense as if it was some scientific fact.

 

[epix]

I'll grant you that only fools would accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence.

Of course there is evidence on the theoretical level, as much as there is evidence for the dark matter. The existence of dark matter, when suggested in in the beginning of the 20th century would be considered a joke, because Albert Einstein never suspected anything like that. But no one wants such evidence dressed in official pants around, especially not God for obvious reasons. A claim of no evidence by those who never move a finger to make sure they are right is a subject for a speedy rejection.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Of course there is evidence on the theoretical level, as much as there is evidence for the dark matter. The existence of dark matter, when suggested in in the beginning of the 20th century would be considered a joke, because Albert Einstein never suspected anything like that. But no one wants such evidence dressed in official pants around, especially not God for obvious reasons. A claim of no evidence by those who never move a finger to make sure they are right is a subject for a speedy rejection.

I'm starting to unravel the code; OF Course, I H at e God.

 

[epix]

Of course you can learn from analyzing mistakes, by noting what the mistake was, and acknowledging that it was a mistake.
The more attention you pay to the content of the mistake the stupider you're likely to be.

Mistakes do not have "content"; mistakes are the difference between intended and unintended and therefore they have magnitude. Once again, you are proving yourself incapable of properly understanding subjects that reach beyond the pseudo-philosophical levels where the atheists vs. theists debate vegetate.

Once you open a box and discover that it is empty, the quest is over. People waste a lot of effort analyzing things that should not be analyzed and coming up with theories that are not only utterly spurious but misleading.

Lol. How do you know that certain occurrences shouldn't be analyzed? Only when you open the box and go through it, you make sure that the thing you were looking for isn't present. I mean, your attitude is so unscientific and self-defeating that it can survive only in the environment offered by hard atheism, which is almost divinely assertive.

Given the tenor of this thread and its inherent silliness, I should probably let this go, but it is not a principle of hard atheism. Anything but. I learned some of it from some prominent theologians and philosophers whose work I respect, with whom I actually studied long ago, and whose memories I will briefly serve by dilating a bit on the stupidity and perniciousness of nonsense masquerading as thought.

The silliness of this thread evolved through genetic material contained in your contributions to it.

A typical character of a genius is that it extends beyond his period. Kurt Godel was not an exception. His letters to his mother show his tendency to search for explanations of seemingly random coincidences.

What is coincidence?

The most visible coincidences are based on identities. For example, 1=1, 2=2, 3=3. Out of this, you can form a coincidence, such as 1st word with 1 letter, 2nd word with 2 letters, 3rd word with 3 letters. So if you come across the short sentence I am God, then it is an example of a coincidence. deaman's sentence was based on this, but it was mighty clever.

So bruto, can you put money where your mouth is and find out what coincidence based on identity exists between that word HELL and the comma right after it? Just for a practice? Remember that some coincidences based on '=' turn out not to be coincidences at all. Like that notorious e = mc².

 

[AdMan]

Where is the evidence that the human ancestry were attempting to understand and explain their universe? It's a mere speculation on the part of those who can't escape the box they are living in. And the gullible buy the nonsense as if it was some scientific fact.

What a bunch of ignorant drivel. You don't think our ancestors were attempting to understand and explain their universe?

That's got to be a joke.

 

[dafydd]

Epix fail.

 

[devnull]

unsubtle shift of burden of proof is unsubtle.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Of course there is evidence on the theoretical level,

Oh good, you want to raise god concepts to the scientific theoretical level. What are the falsifiable characteristics of the god you've made up? We can create falsifiable hypotheses and test your theories about god(s) to see if they actually exist.

as much as there is evidence for the dark matter. The existence of dark matter, when suggested in in the beginning of the 20th century would be considered a joke, because Albert Einstein never suspected anything like that. But no one wants such evidence dressed in official pants around, especially not God for obvious reasons.

Which god(s)?

A claim of no evidence by those who never move a finger to make sure they are right is a subject for a speedy rejection.

So you're saying that The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and was destroyed in making it? That would mean that no gods have existed since the beginning of the universe and time.

 

[bruto]

Mistakes do not have "content"; mistakes are the difference between intended and unintended and therefore they have magnitude. Once again, you are proving yourself incapable of properly understanding subjects that reach beyond the pseudo-philosophical levels where the atheists vs. theists debate vegetate.

Lol. How do you know that certain occurrences shouldn't be analyzed? Only when you open the box and go through it, you make sure that the thing you were looking for isn't present. I mean, your attitude is so unscientific and self-defeating that it can survive only in the environment offered by hard atheism, which is almost divinely assertive.

The silliness of this thread evolved through genetic material contained in your contributions to it.



What is coincidence?

The most visible coincidences are based on identities. For example, 1=1, 2=2, 3=3. Out of this, you can form a coincidence, such as 1st word with 1 letter, 2nd word with 2 letters, 3rd word with 3 letters. So if you come across the short sentence I am God, then it is an example of a coincidence. deaman's sentence was based on this, but it was mighty clever.

So bruto, can you put money where your mouth is and find out what coincidence based on identity exists between that word HELL and the comma right after it? Just for a practice? Remember that some coincidences based on '=' turn out not to be coincidences at all. Like that notorious e = mc².

You say mistakes have no content, yet you continue to analyze the content of a small grammatical mistake in a hasty post as if it did. You can make all sorts of amusing sounding conclusions about it but they will all be yours, not those of the person who uttered it. All the magnitude you can find in a mistake is in the making, not in the result, and that is true even if the mistake is amusing or fascinating in its own right.

If a box is empty you do not have to "go through it" to figure anything out. You can try to figure out why the person presenting the box left out the contents but you cannot rationally analyze what isn't there.

 

[Upchurch]

God = 3 letters
Gödel = 5 letters
and therefore Genesis 3:5

*snort*

I hope that was meant to be comical, especially since you are invoking Gödel.

Can you be more specific? I would welcome a focused elaboration instead of the usual atheistic goulash, or a brief encounter with a thought resulting in a one-word conclusion.

Oh, dear. You sound as if you were being serious.

*sigh*

In rigorous, formal logic, "therefore" indicates that the the following statement can be drawn in conclusion from the premise statements. Of course, the number of letters a word has in a particular language has nothing at all to do with particular chapter and verse of the Bible. Never mind that nothing in the previous two statements indicates a particular book of the Bible, like Genesis. Why Genesis? Why is the number of characters in "God" the chapter and the number of characters in "Gödel" the verse? There is absolutely no logical progression from the premises to the conclusion, at all.

The suddenness and complete unconnectedness of the premises to the conclusion is so jarring, it had to be a joke. Put within the contest of praising Gödel, who is best known as a logician and would have mocked anyone who seriously posited that syllogism, it is nothing but irony, intentional or not.

 

[deaman]

Where is the evidence that the human ancestry were attempting to understand and explain their universe? It's a mere speculation on the part of those who can't escape the box they are living in. And the gullible buy the nonsense as if it was some scientific fact.

The evidence is YOU.

You, a human, are here attempting to explain and understand your universe.

 

[deaman]

But no one wants such evidence dressed in official pants around, especially not God for obvious reasons.

Can you explain why you think you speak for your god? My explanation is because you are just making it up, and since there is no actual evidence for you to present, you figure no one will care.

What is your explanation?

A claim of no evidence by those who never move a finger to make sure they are right is a subject for a speedy rejection.

This would be you, describing yourself.

 

[bruto]

Amazingly, the ascii values for the name "epix" add up to 436, which is the year in which Attila the Hun attacked Burgundy, very significant. But more significant yet, is the fact that if we capitalize the term and get "Epix," the difference in ascii values is 32, which everyone knows is a space. It is clear as mud from this that despite protestations we must continue to write "epix" in lower case, or he might disappear utterly.

 

[dafydd]

The Declaration of Independence consists of 47 sentences.
The New Testament credits Jesus with 47 miracles.
Tolstoy’s novel The Kreutzer Sonata is named after Beethoven’s Opus 47.
Pancho Villa was killed by a barrage of 47 bullets.
The Pythagorean Theorem is Proposition 47 of Euclid’s Elements.
The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are located 47 degrees apart.
Cesar proclaimed “Veni, vidi, vici” in 47 B.C.



I believe!!!!

 

[deaman]

The name Dennis, spelled backwards, becomes Sinned which is defined as: Having committed an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law.

Now, we know the truth, about all people named Dennis! God told us.

 

[dafydd]

Where is the evidence that the human ancestry were attempting to understand and explain their universe? It's a mere speculation on the part of those who can't escape the box they are living in. And the gullible buy the nonsense as if it was some scientific fact.

What about those who cannot escape from the primitive box of religion and who also accept imaginary gods as a fact?

 

[dafydd]

SEE, HE and IS are spelled identically in Morse code (ignoring spaces). Spooky.

 

[abaddon]

The Declaration of Independence consists of 47 sentences.
The New Testament credits Jesus with 47 miracles.
Tolstoy’s novel The Kreutzer Sonata is named after Beethoven’s Opus 47.
Pancho Villa was killed by a barrage of 47 bullets.
The Pythagorean Theorem is Proposition 47 of Euclid’s Elements.
The tropics of Cancer and Capricorn are located 47 degrees apart.
Cesar proclaimed “Veni, vidi, vici” in 47 B.C.



I believe!!!!

No. You are wrong. The correct answer is 42.

 

[epix]

What a bunch of ignorant drivel. You don't think our ancestors were attempting to understand and explain their universe?

That's got to be a joke.

Show me any material evidence from which you can safely conclude that our ancestors were attempting to understand and explain their universe. If there was one, it would be accounted for and displayed as something special. Our ancestors had no time for stupid activities that were ascribed to them, because they were busy looking for food all the time. You are a slave to the appeal to authority - authority that is lazy to think properly and so it comes up with fairies.

 

[epix]

Oh good, you want to raise god concepts to the scientific theoretical level. What are the falsifiable characteristics of the god you've made up? We can create falsifiable hypotheses and test your theories about god(s) to see if they actually exist.

Are you kidding me? You've never done any science have you? In this particular case, the characteristic is irrelevant at this moment - it is the door that leads to the assumption of the existence that matters. If the key to the door exists, then there has to be a testable hypothesis. It's stated in Revelation.

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End, (the False and the True.)

I clearly stated the alternative hypothesis w.r.t. to that deamam's short sentence. The hypothesis stated that a tech super-advanced agency hacked his brain, composed and executed the sentence. But, as usual, the atheists say no, but are unwilling to participate in defending the opposing null hypothesis by legitimate means. Folks like bruto would engage in unrelated double speak rather than do a bit of science that he and others like him pray to.

There is also a good chance that the mods would delete the post where the hypothesis testing is done, as it already happened once in the thread,because folks like bruto would ad hominem deaman or me, as it happened and so there is a reason for the deletion.

Hard atheism is more or less a mindless assault on the phenomenon of modern religion. It's not the sharp tool capable of testing a hypothesis without mercy. That's what I've learned about it.