Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator-Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

[Cabal]

Morcova can only hurl false and malicious accusations. Can't debate.

Baggins, why can't you stop playing games and choose a point?

Again, no points of substance.

Lies, maligning, idiotic comments about how google works that a second grader knows are false.

Is that the best your pathetic group can offer?

Six minutes is hardly much better than six seconds, Postelnik.

Refute Wagner. Too much to hope for? Refute CL's earlier posts. Chances are most of us would come up with similar refutations (because you have brought no points to the debate in your article that haven't been seen and obliterated umpteen times already). If you're so sure you're right, post ONE ARTICLE refuting the main objections and prove us all wrong in one single stroke. Go on. Might even get a few Pulitzers and a Nobel Prize while you're at it.

You started this whingefest, don't complain now that it's biting you in the ass.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

ChordatesLegacy can only lie and obfuscate. You know very well what I meant and you know it.

Nice deflection from the clear depravity shown by you and others with your one zingers. Such obfuscation only further shows your depravity.

AND YES, LET'S DEBATE A SINGLE POINT! YOU CHOOSE!

OK let’s discuss the following; quotes from your article “ Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound” (LINK)

Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.

Let’s start with the amount of elements in the universe, you suggest billions of elements, science indicates less than 100 elements that naturally occur.

I suggest you are WRONG.

 

[Bombila]

SIX MINUTE INTERVAL ZOMG!!!!!!!!1!!!eleven!!!!lim x-> 0 sinc x

How much exactly of Wagner's debunk do you want us to copy and paste into this thread? A debunk exists, I haven't seen anyone disagreeing with it, stop whining and DEBUNK WAGNER. Dragging the issue out onto different boards isn't going to help you at all.

Also, I'm quite surprised that yelling at people in all caps and b1tching on forums is what passes for "journalism" down in Canada these days.

Edit: Also, why are you calling for points to be debated? CL already did that, with spades! Maybe respond to some of his points?

It isn't. Unfortunately for Canadian Creationists, there is very little support for their antics. Their Creation Museum is essentially an aging double-wide in Alberta, and no one here seriously attempts to shove creationism into schools or government - the creationist few in government are told to be quiet about it, especially nearing elections. So the poor dears have few outlets.

 

[Cabal]

It isn't. Unfortunately for Canadian Creationists, there is very little support for their antics. Their Creation Museum is essentially an aging double-wide in Alberta, and no one here seriously attempts to shove creationism into schools or government - the creationist few in government are told to be quiet about it, especially nearing elections. So the poor dears have few outlets.

Yeah, sorry about that, after looking at Canadian Free Press, I realise now it's the Canadian equivalent of WorldNutDaily - right?

 

[Adivi]

Yes, dealt with the issue a number of times. Ask it with some decency and I'll provide a detailed answer.

One of your arguments is that since the universe is so complex, it must be designed. Then what designed the designer, and what designed that?

 

[DuckPhup]

The fact is that Wagner's been running around on the internet posting crass and unfounded accusations against me that he may well have concocted.

What that sentence tells us is that Wagner DID NOT concoct the accusations, and that they are NOT unfounded... and that what is 'crass' are your deeds that he's been writing about.

Your phrase 'may well have' is an example of what are known as 'weasel words'.

Wagner's accusations are EITHER unfounded OR they are not unfounded... and YOU would obviously KNOW whether they are unfounded or not. Your words convey to us that you KNOW the accusations are NOT unfounded... but you wish to convey the impression that they ARE false. However... you leave yourself 'wiggle room'... deniability. Your 'weasel words' leave you in a position where... at some future time when your lies and duplicity are undeniably exposed... to say something like: "But I didn't say that he ACTUALLY concocted crass and unfounded accusations... I was essentially saying that the accusations MIGHT be false and unfounded... so, I wasn't lying."

You would do well to keep your mouth shut to avoid writing in circumstances where your words are at risk of being exposed to people who actually have the ability to employ actual logic, and to parse sentences.

 

[Adivi]

This has all been a lesson in how sick and depraved most atheists are. False accusations by someone who clearly did what they accused the second after they accused it.
Maligning someone because you disagree with them
Incredulity that someone can spoof an IP when this is done routinely and the police are looking into the matter.
REFUSING TO OFFER A SINGLE POINT OF DEBATE OR OF SUBSTANCE

It's possible to spoof an IP, yes. However, it's pretty hard to do so consistently, and the circumstancial evidence such as repeated edits to your own Wikipedia article from the same IP that vandalized the other page kind of points against you.

This isn't ironclad evidence, of course, and the possibility of IP spoofing is certainly out there. However, it would be necessary for the spoofer to find a proxy or other Tor node specifically in your area and edit through that consistently for at least nine days (the vandalous edit was made June 12, the first edit on your article was made June 3). This is pretty tricky to do.

 

[Bombila]

Yeah, sorry about that, after looking at Canadian Free Press, I realise now it's the Canadian equivalent of WorldNutDaily - right?

Pretty much. It's been around since the nineties, I think, and has morphed through several different political stances - at one time it vaguely supported socialists, then liberals, and now seems entirely conservative. It's been involved in quite a few 'wars' with other publications and various politicians over accusations of plagiarism, defamation, etc.

We do have our share of uber-conservatives and reality deniers, but they are looked at somewhat askance by most people - even our current conservative government.

 

[Durp]

Hello. I just created this account to say that this is one of the funniest threads i've seen on this site in a while. Thanks for the laughs, guys!!!

 

[Belk]

This has all been a lesson in how sick and depraved most atheists are. False accusations by someone who clearly did what they accused the second after they accused it.
Maligning someone because you disagree with them
Incredulity that someone can spoof an IP when this is done routinely and the police are looking into the matter.
REFUSING TO OFFER A SINGLE POINT OF DEBATE OR OF SUBSTANCE

How old is this individual supposed to be? This is the kind of rant I would expect from someone in their early teens. I am beginning to wonder if this is a spoof of some sort. Funny though!

 

[Cabal]

Side note:

Welcome to Durp and DuckPhup (awesome names). Do enjoy the banter.

 

[Vene]

OK let’s discuss the following; quotes from your article “ Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound” (LINK)

Yet those who doubt the existence of a Creator believe that an entire universe, containing all of the billions of elements necessary for life to form, may have come about without a builder. As such, they give credence to billions of times more coincidences to having come about.

Let’s start with the amount of elements in the universe, you suggest billions of elements, science indicates less than 100 elements that naturally occur.

I suggest you are WRONG.

Even if you use the extended periodic table it's nowhere near billions (closer to 200). I really want to see ypostelnik explain this.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Even if you use the extended periodic table it's nowhere near billions (closer to 200). I really want to see ypostelnik explain this.

Devils Advocate....

When stating elements he could have been referring to parts. Things like sugars, proteins, lipids etc...not atomic elements. Still I doubt there are billions of them.

/Devils Advocate.

 

[Morcova]

Morcova can only hurl false and malicious accusations. Can't debate.

Baggins, why can't you stop playing games and choose a point?

Again, no points of substance.

Lies, maligning, idiotic comments about how google works that a second grader knows are false.

Is that the best your pathetic group can offer?

Then kindly tell us how google works..

 

[Vene]

Devils Advocate....

When stating elements he could have been referring to parts. Things like sugars, proteins, lipids etc...not atomic elements. Still I doubt there are billions of them.

/Devils Advocate.

Perhaps, but this is terminology at the level of high school science. It's nothing complicated. As for number of different molecules, I have no idea. There are ~30000 human genes (link) and these are just from the combination of 4 different molecules forming a chain. The way that carbon bonds, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a billion different molecules (mind you, the only difference could be that instead of being CH[sub]3[/sub](CH[sub]2[/sub])[sub]n[/sub]CH[sub]3[/sub] it could be CH[sub]3[/sub](CH[sub]2[/sub])[sub]n+1[/sub]CH[sub]3[/sub] which opens up the possibility of a near infinite number of possible molecules).

 

[us38]

False accusations by someone who clearly did what they accused the second after they accused it.

You really should watch your words. You've been accused of libel. Don't do more to suggest that you actually did.

Incredulity that someone can spoof an IP when this is done routinely and the police are looking into the matter.

IP's are not an easy thing to spoof. But, let's say that someone could do it. How about we check out the timeline of events here:

June 3: Your wiki article is edited by the IP in question

June 9: Your article is posted

June 10: Your article is debunked

June 12: The IP in question vandalizes Wagner wiki

You'll notice that 6 days precede the first use of the IP to the posting of the article. No spoofer would know that you were going to post the article, let alone its contents, or that there was going to be a massive debunking of it. So either the spoofer went really far out of their way with the use of a time machine, or you did it. Guess which is more likely?

If you're going to lie, at least try to make it believable.

 

[ypostelnik]

Vene,

Read my other column. I find it incredulous that someone would take "elements of life" as a reference to the Periodic Table of Elements. I believe it's more a case of intellectual dishonesty on your part as no rational reader made such a mistake. Either that or it shows that you read the column with extreme narrow mindedness (hint, nothing in the first column EVEN DEALT WITH EVOLUTION as I stated specifically in it).

The link to the other column is on the new thread I started. As I can't yet post links I'll refer you to a copy of a previously held debate, SPECIFIC to evolution at the bottom of creationistsearcher dot wordpress dot com. If someone who can post links would post the direct link, I believe it would benefit the discussion.

Even if you use the extended periodic table it's nowhere near billions (closer to 200). I really want to see ypostelnik explain this.

 

[ypostelnik]

Adivi,

Here's the take of theologians. The Creator transcends physicality, not just according to the Bible, but according to all religions the Creator is the Creator of physicality (and as the greatest theologians point out, the Creator of spirituality, as physicality can’t be formed from the spiritual and therefore the Creator must transcend both.
Think about it. It’s logically/philosophically sound, because the root cause of all these happenings needs to transcend physicality, as even from a scientific standpoint, physicality isn’t eternal (in and of itself) and needs to have had a definite beginning.
If we look at the complexity of physicality, we realize that the physical is finite and therefore must have a beginning. That leads to the root cause of physicality to be higher than physicality, the Creator to be intricately involved in its details, but to be higher than it and eternal.
That’s just a short overview and would be happy to discuss/debate.

One of your arguments is that since the universe is so complex, it must be designed. Then what designed the designer, and what designed that?

 

[ypostelnik]

Excuse me US and Duck (2 posts, probably a Martin guy who's been following me around - I doubt this discussion so dragged him to this forum because of its intrinsic value).

Martin wrote a hit piece and I sent him a comment. He posts the IP from that. That night, after, his page "gets vandalized" and the same night, with no interaction between us, he starts a campaign to get mine deleted, a google stalking campaign, links everywhere, etc. I did initially think it might be someone here until I saw everything going on and until I saw the Richard Dawkins screens keep popping up on my comp (the next day or so). Now everything adds up.

It's also amazing how you have to go to personal libel and other tactics. That's the hallmark of your side.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

That's the hallmark of your side.

Nope; the hallmark of our side is evidence, something you do not need for your magic mystical view of the universe.