- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Stu,
You prove my point, you see the engineering of the pyramids, and that they still exist so you accept them. However a boat that you know nothing about the structures design, or really even the materials available, yet you make definitive statements that it couldn't of worked, while offering no facts to support it. Your allowed your opinion, but my problem is you state it as an irrefutable fact, which it is not.My opinion – Wm
Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 15 2010,04:27) Stu,
You prove my point, you see the engineering of the pyramids, and that they still exist so you accept them. However a boat that you know nothing about the structures design, or really even the materials available, yet you make definitive statements that it couldn't of worked, while offering no facts to support it. Your allowed your opinion, but my problem is you state it as an irrefutable fact, which it is not.My opinion – Wm
Why would I not accept the existence of the pyramids??Your arguments is ridiculous.
Stuart
The Sydney Opera House was impossible to build and so was the Dubai Tower. I guess in years to come when both these buildings have crumbled into the ground, from written accounts, people will be debating whether they actually existed as they are impossible designs. The problem with the Sydney Opera House was that it was so boldly conceived that it proved structurally impossible to build. After years of research, it was finally made possible by roof vaults with spherical geometry. Stu, let's imagine that it is the year 4500. And you are arguing that the Sydney Opera House was fanciful imagination. Then it would kind of go something like this current discussion I think.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 15 2010,14:09) The Sydney Opera House was impossible to build and so was the Dubai Tower. I guess in years to come when both these buildings have crumbled into the ground, from written accounts, people will be debating whether they actually existed as they are impossible designs. The problem with the Sydney Opera House was that it was so boldly conceived that it proved structurally impossible to build. After years of research, it was finally made possible by roof vaults with spherical geometry. Stu, let's imagine that it is the year 4500. And you are arguing that the Sydney Opera House was fanciful imagination. Then it would kind of go something like this current discussion I think.
The argument is ridiculous because it does not apply to boats.People have tried to make several very large wooden boats. None of them were anywhere near the supposed size of the ark, yet they all suffered from the same size-related problems of unseaworthyness.
It would be a different matter if it was a naval architect's speculative calculation that said it was impossible, but we have the results of real experiments that give us the evidence that large wooden boats are not seaworthy.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 15 2010,17:25) The argument is ridiculous because it does not apply to boats.
It applies to any impossible structure.Impossible just means impossible at the time or impossible to fathom. It doesn't mean impossible forever.
Anyway, I can assure you that the Sydney Opera House exists. I have been there. Although, I don't expect you to take my word for it, but for a few hundred dollars you could see it for yourself.
I believe that Stu may purposely be obtuse at times just to misdirect from the point being made, because he does not have an answer.
My opinion, Wm
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 16 2010,16:10) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 15 2010,17:25) The argument is ridiculous because it does not apply to boats.
It applies to any impossible structure.Impossible just means impossible at the time or impossible to fathom. It doesn't mean impossible forever.
Anyway, I can assure you that the Sydney Opera House exists. I have been there. Although, I don't expect you to take my word for it, but for a few hundred dollars you could see it for yourself.
This is champagne christianity, perhaps the ultimate at bending English:Impossible means possible.
Brilliant.
Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 16 2010,17:12) I believe that Stu may purposely be obtuse at times just to misdirect from the point being made, because he does not have an answer. My opinion, Wm
Come on seeking, when have I ever not had an answer!?…an answer to what?
Stuart
Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 16 2010,17:12) I believe that Stu may purposely be obtuse at times just to misdirect from the point being made, because he does not have an answer. My opinion, Wm
Agreed.But we can all see that I think.
I can and you can obviously.It demonstrates clearly how at least one atheist manages to ignore God. Probably representative of the group in my opinion. I say that because I was an atheist and hung out with atheists and argued against believers once. I found that most atheists were like me at the time. We use to beat around the bush with the hard questions, just like Stu does now. Ignore the stuff like, what is the cause of the universe? Nothing, Something? Please explain? And then after ignoring it, continue to ridicule faith and repeat that there is no God. If you say it long enough, some of the believers might agree. Actually I did get a believer to convert to atheism once, but that is another story.
Truth was, most of my complaints against religion were just that, religion. And somehow I thought that included God and faith, when it was really all the tradition and division that I despised.
Faith in God is awesome. God is awesome. Wouldn't swap my soul and faith for anything. Not even the temptation to become an ape who will end up as compost one day. OK temptation is a strong word.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 23 2010,23:24) Quote (seekingtruth @ Mar. 16 2010,17:12) I believe that Stu may purposely be obtuse at times just to misdirect from the point being made, because he does not have an answer. My opinion, Wm
Agreed.But we can all see that I think.
I can and you can obviously.It demonstrates clearly how at least one atheist manages to ignore God. Probably representative of the group in my opinion. I say that because I was an atheist and hung out with atheists and argued against believers once. I found that most atheists were like me at the time. We use to beat around the bush with the hard questions, just like Stu does now. Ignore the stuff like, what is the cause of the universe? Nothing, Something? Please explain? And then after ignoring it, continue to ridicule faith and repeat that there is no God. If you say it long enough, some of the believers might agree. Actually I did get a believer to convert to atheism once, but that is another story.
Truth was, most of my complaints against religion were just that, religion. And somehow I thought that included God and faith, when it was really all the tradition and division that I despised.
Faith in God is awesome. God is awesome. Wouldn't swap my soul and faith for anything. Not even the temptation to become an ape who will end up as compost one day. OK temptation is a strong word.
An answer to what?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 24 2010,17:27) An answer to what? Stuart
Your proof that there is no God and proof that what caused the universe is either nothing or something non-living.I already know that you do not have a clue. But my point is that you preach as if you have the answer when you are really completely ignorant.
Quote (t8 @ April 10 2010,01:39) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 24 2010,17:27) An answer to what? Stuart
Your proof that there is no God and proof that what caused the universe is either nothing or something non-living.I already know that you do not have a clue. But my point is that you preach as if you have the answer when you are really completely ignorant.
I have as much proof there is no god as you have that there is a god. That is particularly damning because if we accept a religious fantasy cosmology then you cannot even prove that your god is the one that did the creating, and because you would be asking me to prove a negative which is impossible, while you cannot provide AND unambiguous evidence for your positive claim.Regarding the origin of the universe, I refer you to all the instances in this forum where I have laid out in fairly simple terms exactly what the standard model of cosmology says about it, including what it does and does not know.
Stuart
Attempt two:
I have as much proof there is no god as you have that there is a god. That is particularly damning because if we accept a religious fantasy cosmology then you cannot even prove that your god is the one that did the creating, and because you would be asking me to prove a negative which is impossible, you cannot provide ANY unambiguous evidence for your positive claim.
Regarding the origin of the universe, I refer you to all the instances in this forum where I have laid out in fairly simple terms exactly what the standard model of cosmology says about it, including what it does and does not know.
Stuart
Ha ha, proving a negative.
There is a lot of evidence of intelligent design if your eyes are open.
Anyway, about this proving a negative; I guess I don't have to defend against Evolution as it is a negative.
So let's move on.
Quote (Stu @ April 10 2010,11:04) Regarding the origin of the universe, I refer you to all the instances in this forum where I have laid out in fairly simple terms exactly what the standard model of cosmology says about it, including what it does and does not know.
OK, good. So according to the standard model, was the first cause something or nothing? (I realise you have ruled out someone).You can also answer, “we don't have a clue”. That is allowed.
Quote (t8 @ April 21 2010,11:23) Quote (Stu @ April 10 2010,11:04) Regarding the origin of the universe, I refer you to all the instances in this forum where I have laid out in fairly simple terms exactly what the standard model of cosmology says about it, including what it does and does not know.
OK, good. So according to the standard model, was the first cause something or nothing? (I realise you have ruled out someone).You can also answer, “we don't have a clue”. That is allowed.
As I mentioned, I refer you to all the instances where it has been discussed already.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ April 21 2010,11:20) Ha ha, proving a negative. There is a lot of evidence of intelligent design if your eyes are open.
Anyway, about this proving a negative; I guess I don't have to defend against Evolution as it is a negative.
So let's move on.
What actually, is intelligent design? What positive claim are you making about this designer that can be observed, and would not be observed if it was not intelligent design?For example, are you claiming that you would expect all eyes to be of similar “design” because there is a common designer?
Evolution by natural selection is a positive claim, and unlike your notion of intelligent design, it fronts up with real mechanisms and predictions, like the one you drew to our attention earlier: when the Piltdown site was first investigated, the tools that eventually determined it was a hoax did not exist, but evolution by natural selection was used to predict it would turn out to be a hoax. What has intelligent design ever predicted?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2009,17:50) Not sure how much more of your comedy routine I can take! The evidence of the unseen is an oxymoron.
Of the physical universe, we see a small part of an almost infinite spectrum.Thus Stu is saying that the part we cannot see doesn't exist.
I would argue that it doesn't exist in his own head only and that he must have a small head.
And if he cannot admit that there are things outside of what he can see, then of course he won't believe in God and for that matter he doesn't accept that there could even be planets in other galaxies because no one has seen them, thus they are not there.
Admittedly to save some face for Stu, this is starting to sound a bit like Quantum Physics and in particular the Doulb eSlit Experiment.
Quote (Stu @ April 21 2010,22:59) What actually, is intelligent design?
I will make it real simple for you.If you see 100 rocks sprawled randomly at the side of a river, they were likely deposited there by the river. If you see a group of rocks laid in a circular wall about 5 feet high, by reason of that pattern, it is highly unlikely that an unintelligent force like the river created that pattern and more likely that a person or persons (intelligent designer) put them there instead.
With this most basic of irrefutable logic, you can go from there.
However, I think you are likely stuck at this point and will argue in such a way as to prove that a circular wall of rocks can be put there by the river. Of course you will just use a different carefully crafted example so as to not sound as stupid.
Quote (t8 @ June 12 2012,19:28) Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2009,17:50) Not sure how much more of your comedy routine I can take! The evidence of the unseen is an oxymoron.
Of the physical universe, we see a small part of an almost infinite spectrum.Thus Stu is saying that the part we cannot see doesn't exist.
I would argue that it doesn't exist in his own head only and that he must have a small head.
And if he cannot admit that there are things outside of what he can see, then of course he won't believe in God and for that matter he doesn't accept that there could even be planets in other galaxies because no one has seen them, thus they are not there.
Admittedly to save some face for Stu, this is starting to sound a bit like Quantum Physics and in particular the Doulb eSlit Experiment.
Quote Of the physical universe, we see a small part of an almost infinite spectrum.
Thank goodness we have you to tell us all about the part you can’t see.Quote Thus Stu is saying that the part we cannot see doesn't exist.
Since you are replying to my post, it is in order for you to refer to me in the second person. I’m not saying that things we can’t see don’t exist. When did I ever claim that? In fact I have given you examples of things we know we will not be able to sense in any meaningful way.But I am calling your arrogant bluff (and the arrogant bluff of all christians) to claim to KNOW something about that which cannot be seen. You hide your god idea in this “can’t see it” hole, then tell us all about what it looks like. That’s the logical fallacy of special pleading. The gullible might be taken in by it.
Anyway, enough of replying to your rudeness by grammatical inappropriateness.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
