As a Christian, how many of you believe in evolution?

[pitabread]

Well thats a shame you feel it neccessary to make a joke out of @xianghua. To be honest with you i am not familiar with your arguement. What is your beef with this self replicating car? What is your arguement?

I'm not making the argument, he is.

Tell ya what, go familiarize yourself with his posts and arguments then come back and tell me if you think they make sense. Deal?

 

[the iconoclast]

I'm not making the argument, he is.

Tell ya what, go familiarize yourself with his posts and arguments then come back and tell me if you think they make sense. Deal?

Hey hey my dear

Lets negotiate this deal, what is your argument so im familiar with your position? Dont be shy, you are correct, if should not be an issue?

Cheers i look forward to to your reply

 

[pitabread]

Lets negotiate this deal, what is your argument so im familiar with your position?

Again, I'm not making the argument about self-replicating cars. He is. Go read his stuff.

 

[the iconoclast]

If you have something to say, just say it.

Hey hey tagiatelli

Tagliatelli - "Then again, I'm not a nihilist."

Do you disagree with nihilism? What is your opinion of nihilism?

Cheers you marvelous man

 

[the iconoclast]

Again, I'm not making the argument about self-replicating cars. He is. Go read his stuff.

Hey hey

It is true that you did not make the argument however you disagree with it. Why do you disagree with it.

Dont be shy

Cheers

 

[pitabread]

It is true that you did not make the argument however you disagree with it. Why do you disagree with it.

If you're not familiar with the argument in the first place, then the discussion is pointless.

As you don't seem to want to get familiar with the argument, I don't see the point in continuing this. I'm putting you on ignore now.

 

[the iconoclast]

If you're not familiar with the argument in the first place, then the discussion is pointless.

As you don't seem to want to get familiar with the argument, I don't see the point in continuing this. I'm putting you on ignore now.

Hey hey

So you do not want to share your agruement. You would rather inform me of how you made a joke out of xing. Interesting!

Cheers

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey my dear

A formula of propositional logic is a tautology if the formula itself is always true regardless of which valuation is used for the propositional variables.

Then you say its an analogy and then you say you are using a methaphor. Which one is it my new teacher of modern english?

Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God, well dont be shy show me how you do so? You do not.

So you cannot POSIT (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?

You cannot (posit that B is real) ....and IF you can you would have done so. It is different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe?

What you say my highly educated friend

It is a metaphor, and an analogy, and a tautological argument.

If a Lepricorn exists with the attributes I assigned it, then it does what I said it does.

Or, IF A, then A.

This is the same argument as put forth by the gentleman to whom I was responding:

If a logic defying god exists, then logic is defied.

Or, IF A, then A.

 

[the iconoclast]

It is a metaphor, and an analogy, and a tautological argument.

If a Lepricorn exists with the attributes I assigned it, then it does what I said it does.

Or, IF A, then A.

This is the same argument as put forth by the gentleman to whom I was responding:

If a logic defying god exists, then logic is defied.

Or, IF A, then A.

Hey hey

A formula of propositional logic is a tautology if the formula itself is always true regardless of which valuation is used for the propositional variables.

So is your formula itself true regardless of which valuation is used?

Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God.

And you are suggesting you use a metaphor, ie a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God, a metaphor for what?

An analogy is a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Well dont be shy show me how you do so?

Cheers

 

[the iconoclast]

I do a pretty dang good job of responding to nearly everything addressed to me

 

[the iconoclast]

I work in the semiconductor industry, making computer chips on silicon wafers.

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey

A formula of propositional logic is a tautology if the formula itself is always true regardless of which valuation is used for the propositional variables.

So is your formula itself true regardless of which valuation is used?

Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God.

And you are suggesting you use a metaphor, ie a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God, a metaphor for what?

An analogy is a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.

Well dont be shy show me how you do so?

Cheers

I just did show you how the two arguments are equal. I'm not saying that the argument for the Lepricorn is equally good. I'm saying they are equally bad.

The fact that you keep trying to get me to argue in favor of the Lepricorn is missing the point.

 

[the iconoclast]

I'm not saying that the argument for the Lepricorn is equally good. I'm saying they are equally bad.

Hey hey

Now we are going to where i wanna be. I believe you can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. What do you think about this statement when we consider Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God.

Cheers lets have some fun!

 

[46AND2]

Hey hey

Now we are going to where i wanna be. I believe you can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. What do you think about this statement when we consider Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God.

Cheers lets have some fun!

First of all, that wasn't my argument.

My argument was that:

IF there exists a god who can defy logic, then that god can defy logic, is

A teleological argument, JUST LIKE

IF there is a creature called a Lepricorn who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence.

They are both equally bad arguments, and zero knowledge can come from either.

The purpose of pointing this out was in response to someone who claimed the first one, and to show through analogy/metaphor that it's a meaningless claim.

In the analogy, the Lepricorn is a metaphor for god, and the ability to blind creationists is a metaphor for the ability to defy logic. Thus making them both the same, bad argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you disagree with nihilism?

If I wouldn't, I'ld be a nihilist and I just informed you that I'm not a nihilist. So you already know the answer to this question.

What is your opinion of nihilism?

I think it's stupid.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey hey

It is true that you did not make the argument however you disagree with it. Why do you disagree with it.

Dont be shy

Cheers

Because imaginary objects aren't analogous to actually real objects.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey hey

Now we are going to where i wanna be. I believe you can have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. What do you think about this statement when we consider Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God.

Cheers lets have some fun!

Plenty of people have "relationships" with imaginary entities.
Why not a lepricon?

 

[the iconoclast]

First of all, that wasn't my argument. My argument was that: IF there exists a god who can defy logic, then that god can defy logic, is A teleological argument, JUST LIKE IF there is a creature called a Lepricorn who can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence, then that creature can blind creationists to evolutionary evidence. They are both equally bad arguments, and zero knowledge can come from either.

Hello my friend and Thank you for clarifying your position.

So we need to test which belief may produce a result. How would you as an atheist test either proposition?

Lets say there is no doubt in your mind and you are 100% certain but we want to be sure and methodical.
What method did you use to verify and acheive this conclusively?

The purpose of pointing this out was in response to someone who claimed the first one, and to show through analogy/metaphor that it's a meaningless claim. In the analogy, the Lepricorn is a metaphor for god, and the ability to blind creationists is a metaphor for the ability to defy logic. Thus making them both the same, bad argument.

When you likened this remarkable leprechaun to God, how would you argue that it was not a category error and not a bad comparison?
Please show me some of your high standard of education and provide some detail my dear.

You have so far given me some form of explanation yet have not supplied justification for your conclusion? This is becoming more and more interesting

Cheers my dear i like you

 

[the iconoclast]

If I wouldn't, I'ld be a nihilist and I just informed you that I'm not a nihilist. So you already know the answer to this question. I think it's stupid.

Hey hey my dear Fair enough.

Lets know each other a little better. Im a Pentecostal Christian, no higher education and my job is in construction. i did pass high school and became Spirit filled some time ago.
How about you what type of philosophy do you subscribe to - please be honest, we all have labels - and what is your work?

Because imaginary objects aren't analogous to actually real objects.

Because imaginary objects are not comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of actually real objects.

Why is this so my new friend?

Plenty of people have "relationships" with imaginary entities. Why not a lepricon?

What is your proof or arguement that God is imaginary? How did you test? Cheers my dear

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How about you what type of philosophy do you subscribe to

I don't like labels.
But I guess it'ld be secular humanism

- please be honest, we all have labels - and what is your work?

Why is that relevant?

Because imaginary objects are not comparable in certain respects, typically in a way which makes clearer the nature of actually real objects.
Why is this so my new friend?

Imaginary and real, aren't the same thing.
I don't know why I have to explain this.

What can and can't happen in reality is restricted by nature (physics, chemistry, etc).
What can and can't happen in your imagination, is only restricted by the extent of your imagination.

What is your proof or arguement that God is imaginary? How did you test? Cheers my dear

The data of the world is completely consistent with gods being imaginary.
If I assume that gods are imaginary, then from the perspective of human psychological weaknesses, I would expect them to invent countless mutually exclusive gods. I would expect none of these gods to being demonstrably real. I would expect no evidence in support of any of these gods. I would expect all those believes to be based on "faith" instead of evidence. I would expect fallacious apologetics.

In short: the assumption of Gods being imaginary, is completely consistent with what I observer in the world. While nothing I observe in the world, is consistent with one religion being correct.

Then there's the idea that of all religions ever invented by mankind, at best only one can be correct. But since they all make the same kind of claims (faith based supernatural / superstitious claims) and are supported by the same kind of non-evidence and fallacious arguments, it is infinitly more likely that they are all wrong.


In summary: not only do I have no reason whatsoever to believe any religion - I have many reasons not to.