Conquer Club

john9blue wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:OH SHIT NAPPY UNCOVERED OUR INTENTIONS!

Might as well give it up guys, Nappy knows now.

Snorri1234 wrote:Wow, the "MY INTERPRETATION IS THE ONLY CORRECT INTERPRETATION AND ALL OTHERS ARE NOT TRUE!!!"-argument. There's a suprise....

What a hypocrite. Are you going to contribute anything yourself, Snorri, or simply stand blindly behind your beliefs?

As soon as you guys come up with decent arguments I will.

Seriously, if Nappy and Jenos stopped missing the point so much I will stop making sarcastic comments. You could do that too!

I don't stand blindly behind my beliefs, I take actual arguments to determine my belief. I look at both sides of the discussion and decide which side I'll take based on actual good arguments. I don't respond to every point the opposition brings up with "NU-UH!" and just restate my original argument.

I think some associations are being made here that are incorrect. Just because the Bible was misinterpreted during the Middle Ages doesn't invalidate its real message.

See, I know you christians are really convinced about your beliefs, but to assert that you know what God meant and that you are totally right in this is well....arrogant. Who are you to say you're totally correct, when in the same post you claim that humans have flawed judgement? I freely admit I might be wrong regarding almost everything to do with god and religion. Ofcourse, I follow my beliefs, but I don't act like they're the only valid way of looking at the world.

Similarly, if you don't believe the Bible is true, that's hardly a good reason to be an atheist. If you think Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, then the existence of God wouldn't depend on him at all.

Sure the existence of god wouldn't, but how we think of him would.
And if you include all religious texts with that, there is not a single good reason to believe in god's existence.

I think Descartes' ontological argument was already disproved, but if you feel like giving it a try, go ahead.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Right, so, if I can get this straight, without "teh Bibol", there's no evidence for God?

Yeah.........Anselm, Augustine, Augustine, Leibniz, Descartes, ontological argument? Cosmological argument? Goldilock's enigma? No? I don't know, let's be adventurous, proof from Teleology?

None of those are solid proofs though. Even philosophically they have holes in them. Also you said Augustine twice.

I think the point of religion (well, Xianity at least) is that it can't be proven. It requires a leap of faith.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Right, so, if I can get this straight, without "teh Bibol", there's no evidence for God?

Yeah.........Anselm, Augustine, Augustine, Leibniz, Descartes, ontological argument? Cosmological argument? Goldilock's enigma? No? I don't know, let's be adventurous, proof from Teleology?

Nope. (Goldilocks enigma is one of the worst arguments ever btw.)

Snorri1234 wrote:(Goldilocks enigma is one of the worst arguments ever btw.)

I thought about mentioning that. For those that don't know here's the argument: The planet, and to some extent the galaxy, we live on fits us perfectly. It's like we were made for each other. It's juuuuuuust right (the Goldilocks bit). So we are made for each other. Scratch that, the galaxy was made this way for us. God did it. Woot.

Of course, this completely ignores logic. Would we exist if the galaxy wasn't right for us? Hell no. No matter where life is it will be ideal for having life.

Frigidus wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:(Goldilocks enigma is one of the worst arguments ever btw.)

I thought about mentioning that. For those that don't know here's the argument: The planet, and to some extent the galaxy, we live on fits us perfectly. It's like we were made for each other. It's juuuuuuust right (the Goldilocks bit). So we are made for each other. Scratch that, the galaxy was made this way for us. God did it. Woot.

Of course, this completely ignores logic. Would we exist if the galaxy wasn't right for us? Hell no. No matter where life is it will be ideal for having life.

Weak Anthropic principle disproves most, if not all, of his arguments by itself.

More to do with the balance of the fundamental forces.
Snorrarse, we repeat our original arguments in gradually more and more simplistic terms because you cretins make idiotic remarks which are either nonsensical or already answered by our arguments. Seriously, all I've heard spouted from you is "but if teh Qorram is leik wrong teh Bible is wrongzor", and various other stupid remarks of the kind : "The Bible is the only proof for God". Names such as Voltaire, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Einsteinn come to mind...

Neutrino wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:(Goldilocks enigma is one of the worst arguments ever btw.)

I thought about mentioning that. For those that don't know here's the argument: The planet, and to some extent the galaxy, we live on fits us perfectly. It's like we were made for each other. It's juuuuuuust right (the Goldilocks bit). So we are made for each other. Scratch that, the galaxy was made this way for us. God did it. Woot.

Of course, this completely ignores logic. Would we exist if the galaxy wasn't right for us? Hell no. No matter where life is it will be ideal for having life.

Weak Anthropic principle disproves most, if not all, of his arguments by itself.

It suggests an alternate explanation for, not dissproves (it states broadly that as humans, we are only able to imagine our kind of universe as able to support life). I happen to agree that the Goldilock's enigma isn't good enough. But for you people to be so ignorant as to claim that without the Bible there's no evidence for God...it just defies logic how anyone can be so bloody retarded and lacking in logical faculty. Pick up a fucking book, for crying out loud.

Napoleon Ier wrote:More to do with the balance of the fundamental forces.

Weak Anthropic Prinicple (just in case you spontantously become incapable of scrolling up)

Napoleon Ier wrote: Snorrarse, we repeat our original arguments in gradually more and more simplistic terms because you cretins make idiotic remarks which are either nonsensical or already answered by our arguments. Seriously, all I've heard spouted from you is "but if teh Qorram is leik wrong teh Bible is wrongzor", and various other stupid remarks of the kind : "The Bible is the only proof for God". Names such as Voltaire, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Einsteinn come to mind...

Whut? To the best of my knowledge, none of these people provided any proof for God. Why is Einstein suddenly Jesus Mk. 2?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Right, so, if I can get this straight, without "teh Bibol", there's no evidence for God?

Yeah.........Anselm, Augustine, Augustine, Leibniz, Descartes, ontological argument? Cosmological argument? Goldilock's enigma? No? I don't know, let's be adventurous, proof from Teleology?

Nope. (Goldilocks enigma is one of the worst arguments ever btw.)

Snorrarse, you don't hold a candle to the minds of these people. Show some respect. I respect the great Atheist philosophers. I suggest you get down from your conceited little world of delusional secular superiority complex, and at least acknowledge that there is solid evidence forGod, even if you choose to reject it.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

It suggests an alternate explanation for, not dissproves (it states broadly that as humans, we are only able to imagine our kind of universe as able to support life). I happen to agree that the Goldilock's enigma isn't good enough. But for you people to be so ignorant as to claim that without the Bible there's no evidence for God...it just defies logic how anyone can be so bloody retarded and lacking in logical faculty. Pick up a fucking book, for crying out loud.

Without the Bible, there is no evidence for the Christian God. There is no evidence that it isn't actually the Norse pantheon in control. There are various logical paradoxes you can use to suggest the existence of some variety of diety, but logical paradoxes alone evidence does not make.

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:More to do with the balance of the fundamental forces.

Weak Anthropic Prinicple (just in case you spontantously become incapable of scrolling up)

Which I answered for you above, (just in case you spontantously become incapable of scrolling up)

Neutrino wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Weak Anthropic principle disproves most, if not all, of his arguments by itself.

It suggests an alternate explanation for, not dissproves (it states broadly that as humans, we are only able to imagine our kind of universe as able to support life). I happen to agree that the Goldilock's enigma isn't good enough. But for you people to be so ignorant as to claim that without the Bible there's no evidence for God...it just defies logic how anyone can be so bloody retarded and lacking in logical faculty. Pick up a fucking book, for crying out loud.

Without the Bible, there is no evidence for the Christian God. There are various logical paradoxes you can use to suggest the existence of some variety of diety, but logical paradoxes alone evidence does not make.[/quote]

Actually, yes they do. You're also twisting the terms to "the Christian God".

Napoleon Ier wrote: But for you people to be so ignorant as to claim that without the Bible there's no evidence for God...it just defies logic how anyone can be so bloody retarded and lacking in logical faculty. Pick up a fucking book, for crying out loud.

That's just because you don't know what evidence fucking means. I understand that those arguments make a good case for a god, but they don't really prove anything. The very fact that lots of philosophers have pointed out why the arguments is wrong means it isn't real proof.


Noone, and I repeat noone, is saying that god can't exist. You can't actually logically disprove his existence, but neither can you prove it.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Right, so, if I can get this straight, without "teh Bibol", there's no evidence for God?

Yeah.........Anselm, Augustine, Augustine, Leibniz, Descartes, ontological argument? Cosmological argument? Goldilock's enigma? No? I don't know, let's be adventurous, proof from Teleology?

Nope. (Goldilocks enigma is one of the worst arguments ever btw.)

Snorrarse, you don't hold a candle to the minds of these people. Show some respect. I respect the great Atheist philosophers. I suggest you get down from your conceited little world of delusional secular superiority complex, and at least acknowledge that there is solid evidence forGod, even if you choose to reject it.

Nappy. Go f*ck yourself.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Actually, yes they do.

No they don't. Especially when they're not actual paradoxes.

Logical paradoxes > evidence.

Kkkkaaaayyyy then...

So all your logical paradoxes constitute a full body of evidence, while the Weak Anthropic Principle, a logical explanation for many of them is dismissed in a single sentence?

One would point out your double standard, but it seems pretty obvious that you not only acknowledge your own double standard, but revel in it.

And with that, I bid you good day.

Neutrino wrote:Logical paradoxes > evidence.

Kkkkaaaayyyy then...

So all your logical paradoxes constitute a full body of evidence, while the Weak Anthropic Principle, a logical explanation for many of them is dismissed in a single sentence?

One would point out your double standard, but it seems pretty obvious that you not only acknowledge your own double standard, but revel in it.

And with that, I bid you good day.

A paradox no. Ontological proofs, (note the use of the word proof) do.

Neutrino wrote:Logical paradoxes > evidence.

Kkkkaaaayyyy then...

So all your logical paradoxes constitute a full body of evidence, while the Weak Anthropic Principle, a logical explanation for many of them is dismissed in a single sentence?

One would point out your double standard, but it seems pretty obvious that you not only acknowledge your own double standard, but revel in it.

And with that, I bid you good day.

Paradox...no. Ontological proofs, (note the use of the wrod proof, yes?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del ... ical_proof

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neutrino wrote:Logical paradoxes > evidence.

Kkkkaaaayyyy then...

So all your logical paradoxes constitute a full body of evidence, while the Weak Anthropic Principle, a logical explanation for many of them is dismissed in a single sentence?

One would point out your double standard, but it seems pretty obvious that you not only acknowledge your own double standard, but revel in it.

And with that, I bid you good day.

A paradox no. Ontological proofs, (note the use of the word proof) do.

About as valid as Epicurus' trilemma.

Napoleon if you call it "Teh Bobil" I don't see why you read it or believe it in the first place.

did anybody see the quote " i can sum it up in three words: Evolution is a lie" real genius there...probably evolved from a rock!

bspride wrote:did anybody see the quote " i can sum it up in three words: Evolution is a lie" real genius there...probably evolved from a rock!

No, he's the product of unintelligent design.

Napoleon Ier wrote:
A paradox no. Ontological proofs, (note the use of the word proof) do.

One would first like to point out that they are called Ontological Arguments, not proofs.

Then one would like to point out the sheer ridiculousness of some of these arguments. Just because it can exist doesn't mean it does.

Then one would like to point out the existence of counter ontological arguments, which completely invalidate the original arguments.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

Neutrino wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:(Goldilocks enigma is one of the worst arguments ever btw.)

I thought about mentioning that. For those that don't know here's the argument: The planet, and to some extent the galaxy, we live on fits us perfectly. It's like we were made for each other. It's juuuuuuust right (the Goldilocks bit). So we are made for each other. Scratch that, the galaxy was made this way for us. God did it. Woot.

Of course, this completely ignores logic. Would we exist if the galaxy wasn't right for us? Hell no. No matter where life is it will be ideal for having life.

Weak Anthropic principle disproves most, if not all, of his arguments by itself.

It suggests an alternate explanation for, not dissproves (it states broadly that as humans, we are only able to imagine our kind of universe as able to support life). I happen to agree that the Goldilock's enigma isn't good enough. But for you people to be so ignorant as to claim that without the Bible there's no evidence for God...it just defies logic how anyone can be so bloody retarded and lacking in logical faculty. Pick up a fucking book, for crying out loud.

::Picks up book::
::Reads book::
::Puts book down::

Nope. It's still a fucking load of shit written by ancient humans regarding the nature of the world as they perceived it. Great for them. Shit for us. We can now use our own logical faculties (however retarded) to examine the universe around us and make our own decisions. I understand that thinking for oneself can be difficult at times when one is so used to having their life governed by a 2000 year-old magician, but calling more open-minded individuals goons is a bit presumptuous. The Bible is good as evidence for little other than the existence of creative/gullible writers/figures who lived a long time ago. Some of them had good ideas with respect to morality, some not so much. But you can keep your revelation to yourself, because you are the only person it is of any use to.

I've been there, examined my faith critically, found it a bit goony, with very little reason to believe any of it, and disposed of it. I recommend you try it.