Bye Bye Ape Man!!!

[Nathan Poe]

Is that sundae your way of celebrating your willful ignorance of modal logic?

No, that's what acceptance of the ontological argument is for.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Axioms 3-5 complete the circle.

Or, for those playing at home:

1: God is (defined by humans) perfect.

2: If God didn't exist, He wouldn't be perfect.

3: Ergo, God exists.

Did I miss anything vital?

 

[Tomk80]

Claiming the Ontological Argument is circular is a sure sign that you cannot comprehend it.

Your dismissive answer is a sure sign that you know he is correct.

 

[sfs]

I dont thinkt here are expert physicists on this forum.

I assume all the expert physicists are on their own expert physicist forums, correct?

There's a physicist or two kicking around this forum. I think Chalnoth is one, and I'm an expert ex-physicist. Nothing being discussed here seems to require any actual expertise in physics, however. As far as I can tell, DMagoh has no interest in science and no respect for expertise, so why bother talking?

 

[sfs]

Are all the expert biologists on their own expert biologists forums?

No.

 

[Brennin]

Your dismissive answer is a sure sign that you know he is correct.

No, and I suggest spending less time under the fume hood.

 

[Brennin]

Axioms 3-5 complete the circle.

The only circle here is the one the argument made as it sailed past your head.

 

[DMagoh]

its not like hes trying to insult anyone, that is just his honest opinion of religion.

So let's see... if I stated that my honest opinion of you was that you are an egotistical, self-important, know-it-all, arrogant, pompous blow hole, I guess you wouldn't think I was trying to insult you because it was just my honest opinion?

 

[TheOutsider]

The main problems that I have with the ontological argument are:

1) It assumes that God is necessary
2) It assumes that just because we, as humans, can imagine something then it automatically exists.
3) Even it the argument was correction, there is no way of knowing which God is the correct one.

 

[DMagoh]

while this new evidence would cause us [emphasis added] to amend the theory of evolution, it would by no means prove that the theory of evolution is untrue, and it sure as **** wouldent' prove creationism right

Who is "us"?... are you a biologist or physicist? At 15, my guess is you may have completed one course of high school biology. Have you disected a fetal pig yet? Great. Have you looked at cool stuff under a microscope? Cool. Have you watched a tadpole turn into a frog? Neat. Yeah, I guess that qualifies you as an expert. Thanks for proving that the arrogance of atheists develops at a young age.

 

[DMagoh]

As far as I can tell, DMagoh has no interest in science and no respect for expertise, so why bother talking?

Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Feel free to leave at anytime.

 

[DMagoh]

Are all the expert biologists on their own expert biologists forums?

No.

You still here?

 

[The Bellman]

Who is "us"?... are you a biologist or physicist? At 15, my guess is you may have completed one course of high school biology. Have you disected a fetal pig yet? Great. Have you looked at cool stuff under a microscope? Cool. Have you watched a tadpole turn into a frog? Neat. Yeah, I guess that qualifies you as an expert. Thanks for proving that the arrogance of atheists develops at a young age.

What an antagonistic post. By 'us' he obviously meant those of us who are rational and educated enough to accept the theory of evolution.

 

[DMagoh]

What an antagonistic post. By 'us' he obviously meant those of us who are rational and educated enough to accept the theory of evolution.

#1, all I get is antagonistic posts from y'all, declaring my ignorance and idiocy, so dont be surprised or judgemental when you get it in return;
#2, if he is old enough to be arrogant and talk down to me, he should be old enough to handle what he gets back.

 

[Blayz]

while this new evidence would cause us [emphasis added] to amend the theory of evolution, it would by no means prove that the theory of evolution is untrue, and it sure as **** wouldent' prove creationism right

Who is "us"?... are you a biologist or physicist? At 15, my guess is you may have completed one course of high school biology. Have you disected a fetal pig yet? Great. Have you looked at cool stuff under a microscope? Cool. Have you watched a tadpole turn into a frog? Neat. Yeah, I guess that qualifies you as an expert. Thanks for proving that the arrogance of atheists develops at a young age.

I am a biologist, and a qualified expert in the field. Does the fact I agree with the original quote in anyway change your mind? If not, what was the point of posting what you did, beyond evading the question, producing a smokescreen, our just outright abuse?

I suspect the latter, and Ghandi said it best. I like your Christ, but not you Christians. You are so unlike him.

 

[sfs]

Who is "us"?... are you a biologist or physicist? At 15, my guess is you may have completed one course of high school biology. Have you disected a fetal pig yet? Great. Have you looked at cool stuff under a microscope? Cool. Have you watched a tadpole turn into a frog? Neat. Yeah, I guess that qualifies you as an expert. Thanks for proving that the arrogance of atheists develops at a young age.

Curious. He's only 15, but he still manages to display a better grasp of science than you do. His answer was correct.

 

[sfs]

You still here?

Yes.

 

[Logic_Fault]

Who is "us"?... are you a biologist or physicist? At 15, my guess is you may have completed one course of high school biology. Have you disected a fetal pig yet? Great. Have you looked at cool stuff under a microscope? Cool. Have you watched a tadpole turn into a frog? Neat. Yeah, I guess that qualifies you as an expert. Thanks for proving that the arrogance of atheists develops at a young age.

For someone with such a tenuous grasp on evolution as you seem to have you shouldn't be taking such a condescending tone to others in regards to their knowledge of biology.

At 15 he's probably had more exposure to evolution than you have had to judge by your posts.

 

[Logic_Fault]

#1, all I get is antagonistic posts from y'all, declaring my ignorance and idiocy, so dont be surprised or judgemental when you get it in return;

Rectify your lack of knowledge regarding evolution, as more then a few of us have suggested you do, and you wont have that problem any longer.

 

[Brennin]

The main problems that I have with the ontological argument are:

1) It assumes that God is necessary
2) It assumes that just because we, as humans, can imagine something then it automatically exists.
3) Even it the argument was correction, there is no way of knowing which God is the correct one.

Even though I disagree with you, I consider your post a marked improvement over the others.