- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,20:20) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 16 2010,20:06) Hi Stuart, Electrical impulses have been seen in the sky for eons.
Electrical impulses also occur naturally as static discharges; SCIENTIFIC FACT .
So it was only a matter of time before these electrical impulses coalesced into cyberspace.
This natural occurring process then took just few decades to evolve into the cyberlife you see today.
Nothing became all you can imagine, that's how cyberspace began! One big electrical bang started the whole process.Ed J
You are a blind man refusing to see the truth. It is self-evident that cyberspace was designed because Tim is much bigger than your puny brain will ever understand.How's my creationist role play coming along do you think, Ed?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Cyber platitude!
Get back to me when you have some unambiguous proof.
Ed J
Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 16 2010,20:24) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,20:20) Quote (Ed J @ Oct. 16 2010,20:06) Hi Stuart, Electrical impulses have been seen in the sky for eons.
Electrical impulses also occur naturally as static discharges; SCIENTIFIC FACT .
So it was only a matter of time before these electrical impulses coalesced into cyberspace.
This natural occurring process then took just few decades to evolve into the cyberlife you see today.
Nothing became all you can imagine, that's how cyberspace began! One big electrical bang started the whole process.Ed J
You are a blind man refusing to see the truth. It is self-evident that cyberspace was designed because Tim is much bigger than your puny brain will ever understand.How's my creationist role play coming along do you think, Ed?
Stuart
Hi Stuart,Cyber platitude!
Get back to me when you have some unambiguous proof.
Ed J
I think you mean unambiguous evidence, don't you?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,19:49) Recognising and rehearsing the name “Sir Tim” is the first step in believing in Him. Perhaps you should call out to Tim to reveal himself to you. Perhaps your call will be answered if you can truly believe.
Religious platitude.Which Tim is God of cyberspace?
Tim Shadbolt
Tim Finn
Tim Berners Lee
Tim TamNone of the above?
And what proof do you have besides a book or books?
Stu, you are doing a terrible job at proving that Cyberspace was created.
Sounds like that other debate we had earlier about the universe. Not much logic or good argument either.Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,20:20) You are a blind man refusing to see the truth. It is self-evident that cyberspace was designed because Tim is much bigger than your puny brain will ever understand.
Wow Tim is special. He is the creator. All hail Tim and celebrate with a Tim Tam and a cup of Tea. More tea vicar and another rock cake perhaps.Stu, you believe a written record because you didn't see him do it with your own eyes.
What faith you have. I suppose you are going to tell me that you deny that digital worlds can spontaneously appear without a creator. If you do, you lack understanding about possibilities in binaries self organizing themselves into building blocks (libraries) due to the sheer number of possibilities and huge time that allows even all the binary to fall into place once in a while. Did it ever cross your puny brain that this digital existence is that once in a while? There is no need for a creator of cyberspace. Wake up.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 17 2010,00:44) Wow Tim is special. He is the creator. All hail Tim and celebrate with a Tim Tam and a cup of Tea. More tea vicar and another rock cake perhaps.
Did someone call me?Tim
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 17 2010,00:31) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,19:49) Recognising and rehearsing the name “Sir Tim” is the first step in believing in Him. Perhaps you should call out to Tim to reveal himself to you. Perhaps your call will be answered if you can truly believe.
Religious platitude.Which Tim is God of cyberspace?
Tim Shadbolt
Tim Finn
Tim Berners Lee
Tim TamNone of the above?
And what proof do you have besides a book or books?
You know that all Tims are actually different descriptions of the One True Tim.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 17 2010,00:34) Stu, you are doing a terrible job at proving that Cyberspace was created.
Thank you. Indeed creationists do a terrible job of proving anything.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 17 2010,00:44) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 16 2010,20:20) You are a blind man refusing to see the truth. It is self-evident that cyberspace was designed because Tim is much bigger than your puny brain will ever understand.
Wow Tim is special. He is the creator. All hail Tim and celebrate with a Tim Tam and a cup of Tea. More tea vicar and another rock cake perhaps.Stu, you believe a written record because you didn't see him do it with your own eyes.
What faith you have. I suppose you are going to tell me that you deny that digital worlds can spontaneously appear without a creator. If you do, you lack understanding about possibilities in binaries self organizing themselves into building blocks (libraries) due to the sheer number of possibilities and huge time that allows even all the binary to fall into place once in a while. Did it ever cross your puny brain that this digital existence is that once in a while? There is no need for a creator of cyberspace. Wake up.
You deny the obvious.The second “404 Not Found” stings a bit.
Apparently.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 17 2010,08:54) Thank you. Indeed creationists do a terrible job of proving anything. Stuart
Doing a terrible job of proving gravity doesn't mean it isn't real.My point is that proving Cyberspace was created from within cyberspace is the same challenge as proving that space (Universe) was created from within Space.
Here is the thing.
We have done a noble job of showing you that there is a creator of Real Space (inner, outer, and in between) and you are doing a terrible job of proving that there was a creator of cyberspace.
I think there are some things that you need to take a long hard look at.
For a start, you will notice how easy it was for me to say “religious platitude” to your evidence. Similarly, it works the same in the Real Space debates when the boot is on the other foot.
In short. You have failed to prove that there was a creator of Cyberspace, even when you have the luxury of seeing it from a higher dimension. And we have done a better job proving real space has a creator even without the aid of being taken up to the highest Heaven to see it.
In short you have failed in both debates.
Can you send in a replacement please. Pass the baton to someone who can give us even half a challenge. I guess now is a good time to point out the obvious. You lost quite a while ago, but this is written notice that you have officially lost.
t8
Quote Doing a terrible job of proving gravity doesn't mean it isn't real.
True. What chance was there that the arguments for a designer of the universe were ever going to get any better than “terrible”?Quote My point is that proving Cyberspace was created from within cyberspace is the same challenge as proving that space (Universe) was created from within Space.
And does that have any validity, or is it the fallacy of composition? What is the relationship between the appearance of space-time and human inventions?Quote Here is the thing. We have done a noble job of showing you that there is a creator of Real Space (inner, outer, and in between) and you are doing a terrible job of proving that there was a creator of cyberspace.
Is doing a noble job better than doing a terrible job, if the noble effort is also terrible?I
Quote think there are some things that you need to take a long hard look at. For a start, you will notice how easy it was for me to say “religious platitude” to your evidence. Similarly, it works the same in the Real Space debates when the boot is on the other foot.
That is because I have been writing as many platitudes as I can in this thread. My inspiration has been you, Ed, JustAskin and others. Thanks for that!Elsewhere I haven’t posted a platitude, at least not one I have not admitted to. Unless you can identify one.
Quote In short. You have failed to prove that there was a creator of Cyberspace, even when you have the luxury of seeing it from a higher dimension. And we have done a better job proving real space has a creator even without the aid of being taken up to the highest Heaven to see it.
My challenge was to be the creationist. I am pleased to see you think I have failed, because apart from posting a picture of the inventor of the internet, which you have never matched in your assertions about the alleged invention of the universe, I have only used creationist-style statements that are failures. As I said, I have copied some of the wording used by god-believers here. I was going to say I aped the wording…Quote In short you have failed in both debates. Can you send in a replacement please. Pass the baton to someone who can give us even half a challenge. I guess now is a good time to point out the obvious. You lost quite a while ago, but this is written notice that you have officially lost.
Sure bodhitharta, whatever you assert. I can see you are taking the “dishonest” option I mentioned earlier. That seems to be the easiest way out of the loop.Shame to kill it so soon, I hadn’t even got on to copying your inappropriate analogies. Houses are designed by architects and buses by automotive designers, so only a fool would believe that cyberspace doesn’t have a designer. Would you not agree that this is a convincing argument? You can barely say no!
Stuart
In short Stu, you lost but you are probably not smart enough to see it.
I really think you need to get some smarter Atheists to debate here. Do you know any that might be interested? Or could it be that you have made their best case, and if so, then Atheists have nothing but a bunch of unreasonable beliefs when it comes to explaining the cause of all things. I suspect the second option because every case and statement you made is not new to me. I was a proud Atheist once, and realised that the truth was hidden from me because of pride. I have since seen the light obviously.Nothing does nothing and something eternal that is not living/intelligent has the IQ of zero. How much more simple does this need to be for it to sink into your Atheist skull?
If you cannot fathom it, then I politely and firmly say to you “you lost Stu and you are just embarrassing yourself continuing to flog a dead horse”.
It takes a man to face up to losing but it is the first step in order to start again.
Are you willing to face up to reality, or will you continue to entertain with answers that have little relevance to the questions?Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2010,14:23) In short Stu, you lost but you are probably not smart enough to see it.
I really think you need to get some smarter Atheists to debate here. Do you know any that might be interested? Or could it be that you have made their best case, and if so, then Atheists have nothing but a bunch of unreasonable beliefs when it comes to explaining the cause of all things. I suspect the second option because every case and statement you made is not new to me. I was a proud Atheist once, and realised that the truth was hidden from me because of pride. I have since seen the light obviously.Nothing does nothing and something eternal that is not living/intelligent has the IQ of zero. How much more simple does this need to be for it to sink into your Atheist skull?
If you cannot fathom it, then I politely and firmly say to you “you lost Stu and you are just embarrassing yourself continuing to flog a dead horse”.
It takes a man to face up to losing but it is the first step in order to start again.
Are you willing to face up to reality, or will you continue to entertain with answers that have little relevance to the questions?
Houses are designed by architects and buses by automotive designers, so only a fool would believe that cyberspace doesn’t have a designer. Would you not agree that this is a winning argument?If you don't then perhaps you had better get back to all those other threads where you used this argument and start editing it out of them.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,19:02) Houses are designed by architects and buses by automotive designers, so only a fool would believe that cyberspace doesn’t have a designer. Would you not agree that this is a winning argument?
Ha ha. Priceless.He admits to a creator when he knows full well that they exist because it is the only explanation and he has seen some evidence first hand.
But cannot admit the same thing on a much bigger scale because he didn't see it happen in his lifetime.
You lose Stu because you are narrow minded and ignorant of that which is beyond your own experience.
The fact that you didn't see something doesn't make it go away. I have said for quite some time that you believe in magic, whereas a serious thinker knows that things don't appear out of nothing. There is more chance of a tooth fairy than nothing acting on nothing and making everything.
It is true Stu that the fool says that there is no God.
I admit that in this debate it is foolish to debate that digital worlds can spontanoeusly generate out of nothing. And I admit that it is foolish to believe that universes can generate out of nothing. It is foolish to believe that anything, any thought, any law, any number can exist out of nothing while being acted upon by nothing.
I took the losing side of being the Atheist in this debate to demonstrate to you what your Atheistic lame answers are really like when you know the truth and I also drew the same arguments that you and other Atheists use to defend my false position in this debate. My points were no different such as that binary code can organise itslef into useful combinations that can make things happen. That is the same as believing that Quantum level objcts organised in such a way to make up bigger self organising parts and even make up the building blocks of life itself.
The other thing is that life can express itself in cyberspace, and yet life is not a product of cyberspace. Yet you cannot believe the same with the physical universe. You think life and conscience is a product of the 3 dimensional physical universe. You poor and blind man. Your soul is the most valuable thing you own and you give it away for nothing because you don't believe you have one.
Any chance of getting some smarter Atheists to join Stu? Do you know of any? I need a better caliber of opponent, otherwise I might be in danger of becoming complacent.
BTW, I am not bragging that I am better than you at debates, but that you lost because you are trying to defend a lie. It requires much less skill to defend the truth, than a lie because a lie requires made up stories to overcome the truth and when you think you have covered everything, you find gaping holes that need more work.
Please send more able Atheists because if you have represented all the Atheists of the world then Atheism has clearly lost hasn't it?
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2010,20:01) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,19:02) Houses are designed by architects and buses by automotive designers, so only a fool would believe that cyberspace doesn’t have a designer. Would you not agree that this is a winning argument?
Ha ha. Priceless.He admits to a creator when he knows full well that they exist because it is the only explanation and he has seen some evidence first hand.
But cannot admit the same thing on a much bigger scale because he didn't see it happen in his lifetime.
This is why you lost Stu.
The fact that you didn't see something doesn't make it go away. I have said for quite some time that you believe in magic, whereas a serious thinker knows that things don't appear out of nothing. There is more chance of a tooth fairy than nothing acting on nothing and making everything.
It is true Stu that the fool says that there is no God.
I admit that in this debate it is foolish to debate that digital worlds can spontanoeusly generate out of nothing. And I admit that it is foolish to believe that universes can generate out of nothing. It is foolish to believe that anything, any thought, any law, any number can exist out of nothing while being acted upon by nothing.
I took the losing side of being the Atheist in this debate to demonstrate to you what your Atheistic lame answers are really like when you know the truth and I also drew the same arguments that you and other Atheists use to defend my false position in this debate. My points were no different such as that binary code can organise itslef into useful combinations that can make things happen. That is the same as believing that Quantum level objcts organised in such a way to make up bigger self organising parts and even make up the building blocks of life itself.
The other thing is that life can express itself in cyberspace, and yet life is not a product of cyberspace. Yet you cannot believe the same with the physical universe. You think life and conscience is a product of the 3 dimensional physical universe. You poor and blind man. Your soul is the most valuable thing you own and you give it away for nothing because you don't believe you have one.
Thank you for conceding. Was it your own argument that convinced you, or that you now acknowledge that which you denied earlier?Praise be, a convert to designerism!
Just for the record, your post contains the following logical fallacies:
Strawman (Stu believes in magic);
Argumentum ad hominem (“fool” as an argument);
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness (nothing is something that can do things);
False analogy (quantum particles behave like digital code);
False analogy (expression of life in cyberspace matches the existence of life and consciousness in the physical universe);
And of course you assert that I have a soul without being able to define what that means.
Well t8 I can equally assert that you have a jkl;'\ and that I think you are careless not to keep it in better condition.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 19 2010,20:07) Any chance of getting some smarter Atheists to join Stu? Do you know of any? I need a better caliber of opponent, otherwise I might be in danger of becoming complacent. BTW, I am not bragging that I am better than you at debates, but that you lost because you are trying to defend a lie. It requires much less skill to defend the truth, than a lie because a lie requires made up stories to overcome the truth and when you think you have covered everything, you find gaping holes that need more work.
Please send more able Atheists because if you have represented all the Atheists of the world then Atheism has clearly lost hasn't it?
You have failed to spot the flaw in this. I won because you are now convinced of my argument.Which is not really a problem for me, more a problem for you. If I can routinely gain the upper hand in logical and empirical terms as an atheist, and when I use the same pathetic creationist tactics myself in argument and still win, I'm afraid the obvious conclusion is you had better stay a creationist christian Imaginary Friend conspiracy theorist because you would not survive for very long in the real world of debate carrying on like that (see list of logical fallacies above – not bad for one post, and you are using some new ones too).
Christians follow in the “proud” tradition of Saul of Tarsus in claiming persecution for their beliefs, when silly beliefs really do at least deserve ridicule. If you can't argue against those calling your bluff you may as least bolster others in their delusion.
Don't you think?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 19 2010,20:32) You have failed to spot the flaw in this. I won because you are now convinced of my argument.
Yes you won Stu. There is a creator.
You have made progress.Now try and tackle the larger universe. Try and think logically as to how it could have happened. Remember this, nothing can do nothing. And bits of everything ordering themselves into living creatures, planets, suns, and galaxies, is just silly.
If you need a hand just post here. Feel free to rant and get it all off your chest when you get frustrated. It is OK. I will listen. Just try.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
