plaetton:

You know that Santa clause exists, and yet you deny him despite christmas , snow and reindeers.
Whatever you are suffering from is probably what atheists suffer too.

Hiswordxray:


What concern Santa Clause with what we are saying. This is totally off point. I can't believe you don't know what else to say.
haayer... sorry that problem must be really serious.

Instead of suffering why not ask for help?
God can cure any problem you have.

plaetton:


Just don't get upset when we remind you that religion is a delusion.

Hiswordxray:


And just don't get upset when we remind you that you are only lying to yourself and you have a lot of problem and suffering only God could solve.

Why not end your suffering and problem, and just come to God, let him cure you.

plaetton:


Liberia and Sierra Leone should be more than enough problems for god to solve right now. Don't you think?

Children of a retired god.
Lol.

Hiswordxray:


You have no idea what faith is and you know God exist. For the Bible says "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened." (Rom 1:18-21).

And you can say whatever you like to disqualify those verses but telling me and telling yourself that you don't know if God exist, is a big lie.
STOP DECEIVING YOURSELF AND FACE THE TRUTH.

wiegraf:

What exactly do you think you just achieved?

wiegraf:


What exactly do you think you just achieved?

Hiswordxray:

This is the biggest lie I have ever heard. Atheist do not have honest conscience but instead they have a troubled conscience which they try to calm which foolish logical lies.
You know God exist but you denial him and your conscience will forever trouble you no matter the lies you tell yourself.

wiegraf:
^^^^


Is your brain so diseased you forget you quoted me first? What was that, less than 24 hours ago? Were you not the one accusing me of telling the 'biggest' lie ever, making fo.olish contradictions, having a troubled conscience blah blah??

Hope you aren't trying some subterfuge with some superb mumu-ism? I hope you genuinely aren't this mo.ronic (though it clearly seems that way, given your responses so far...)

Anyhoo, I'll try one last time, because I'm a good guy. As I noticed a distinct lack of an answer, once again, please answer; what exactly do you think you achieved with that your post?

Hiswordxray:


Oh! am sorry, I forgot but you don't need to use all those abusive words.

sinequanon:
You can easily do the same for science.

[size=16pt]The fundamental axioms of science are infallible -- (The whole universe is govern by repeatable, reproducible, unchanging law and logic).[/size]

But how can you be so sure that the axioms are infallible?

sinequanon:

[size=16pt]Because we have evidence and proof that tell us they are.[/size]

sinequanon:

But what do you mean by evidence?

[size=16pt]Anything that obeys the laws and logic of science.[/size]

wiki:

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.

sinequanon:

[size=16pt]Because we have evidence and proof that tell us they are.[/size]

sinequanon:

But how do you know that applies to everything?

wiki:

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[12][13]

N, the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[13]

Epsilon (ε), the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, is 0.007. If it were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. If it were 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang.[13]

Omega (Ω), also known as the Density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[13]

Lambda (λ) is the cosmological constant. It describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[14] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[13]

Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[13]

D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4

sinequanon:

[size=16pt]The fundamental axioms of science are infallible -- (The whole universe is govern by repeatable, reproducible, unchanging law and logic).[/size]

So, you just filter out what you don't want to like, and bingo! you have truth.


www.nairaland.com/attachments/1883472_780pxbiblecycle_jpeg6eb8159e577f1d414c012eaa35feeb37

wiegraf:
We don't, to everything. We do know they apply to everything that relates to us. Ie, they apply to everything in this universe. Or do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise? Heck, even mathematical. Please share.

sinequanon:


Sorry, you are too thick for me to deal with, which is why my post didn't mention you.

Only stupid laypeople think the way you do. Scientists generally understand that there is an element of faith in science, and there are branches of philosophy questioning that faith -- dumbo.

wiegraf:
...who you can confuse by equating the fact that scientific truths are provisional into meaning science relies on faith, ignoring the whole [size=16pt]evidence[/size] part.

EDITED

sinequanon:


Ignoring your hopeless retreat back into your circular "evidence" argument (can't you read?), this is the first attempt at something sensible that I have seen you post.

But it is wrong.

You can call "nothing travels faster than the speed of light" a "provisional truth" in the sense that it is a "working assumption" that is so far deemed consistent with scientific thinking.

But, "the whole universe is govern by repeatable, reproducible, unchanging law and logic" is not a "provisional truth" in science. It is an absolute truth in science. It is not falsifiable from within science, because science allows no way for that to happen.

As I mentioned earlier, you are too thick to see the difference. So perhaps someone with intelligence could take up your point on your behalf.

wiegraf:

plaetton:

sinequanon:


Ignoring your hopeless retreat back into your circular "evidence" argument (can't you read?), this is the first attempt at something sensible that I have seen you post.

But it is wrong.

You can call "nothing travels faster than the speed of light" a "provisional truth" in the sense that it is a "working assumption" that is so far deemed consistent with scientific thinking.

But, "the whole universe is govern by repeatable, reproducible, unchanging law and logic" is not a "provisional truth" in science. It is an absolute truth in science. It is not falsifiable from within science, because science allows no way for that to happen.

As I mentioned earlier, you are too thick to see the difference. So perhaps someone with intelligence could take up your point on your behalf.

plaetton:


The truth is that you make little sense to anyone.
You pretend to be living an alternate universe where the universe bends according to your word definitions.

You are like a food critic who relishes in criticizing meals he has never and could never prepare.

Hiswordxray:


And you when will you stop fighting it?
Why do you keep telling yourself that you are better than those religious people?
Does telling yourself lies really make you feel better?


When will you come out to the light and be true to yourself?

plaetton:


The truth is that you make little sense to anyone.
You pretend to be living an alternate universe where the universe bends according to your word definitions.

You are like a food critic who relishes in criticizing meals he has never and could never prepare.

sinequanon:


See, another empty post that addresses nothing.

Nobody reading this would have the slightest clue what the thread title may be.

You just waffle and think you are talking for everyone.

I am telling you to avoid the problem of definitions. If you mean "conforms to the fundamental ASSUMPTIONS of science", be explicit -- say so, and stop hiding your circularity behind words like "evidence" and "proof".

plaetton:

What have you ever addressed in this forum?
You want us to indulge in word- chasing with you?

I wish I could honestly convince you that I actually read and reread your posts because I really want understand where you are coming from. Honestly.

But I see are just waffle waffle babbles. No substance whatsoever.

So maybe you should come down, stop hiding behind obtuse words and definitions, and allow us to really hear you...

sinequanon:


You are dishonest, so stop pretending you are not.

It is quite simple. All you have to do is tell me the first statement you disagree with of the following three.

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

2. Science only accepts as "evidence", "proof", "rational observation" explanations that conform to this ASSUMPTION.

3. Therefore this ASSUMPTION is not falsifiable using science, and hence is not scientific.

There is nothing "obtuse" there, so stop being dishonest and fooling yourself. Your problem is with your ideas not holding up.

plaetton:

I have nothing to be dishonest about. I have nothing to peddle and nothing worth protecting with dishonesty. I pay serious attention to viewpoints different from mine, so I may learn something that I may not know.

You seem to have your own secret definition of what rationality means.
If the laws of the mechanistic universe, the laws upon which we have built our knowledge base, our technologies, our material comforts, our manipulation of nature to survive, are all just convenient assumptions, then KINDLY tell is what is real.

We are eager to learn , if you have an insight to offer.

sinequanon:


You are dishonest! Even with yourself. You have simply evaded the question.

Which is the first of the three points do you disagree with? Why not answer first before trying to move to another question.

1. Science makes the ASSUMPTION that we live in a universe entirely governed by fixed, unchanging, repeatable, reproducible laws.

2. Science only accepts as "evidence", "proof", "rational observation" explanations that conform to this ASSUMPTION.

3. Therefore this ASSUMPTION is not falsifiable using science, and hence is not scientific.

What is your answer, 1, 2 or 3. Is that so difficult?

plaetton:


When I ignore your questions, it's my hint that your questions are silly, for want of a better word.
I feel it's a condescension for me to attempt to answer questions framed on convoluted logic. If I start , we will end up running in circles.

If you cannot see the contradictions in your own questions, then your questions are useless.

Besides, had we not addressed those issues on another thread ?

Let me help you.
What is assumotion, what is observation, what is evidence?
Give me your definitions of the above, and we might actually get somewhere.

sinequanon:


Stop lying to yourself.

You are doing what every other religion does.

You are stumped and trying to obfuscate, spin and divert the debate.

Q.E.D

No need for any further back and forth.

plaetton:

Let me tell you, I never ever judge anyone on the basis of religious belief. In a perfect society , people that believe in 72 heavenly virgins, people that believe in talking snakes, people that believe in a flying spaghetti monster, as well as that have no beliefs can get along and not inconvience or be s nuisance to one another.

The problem with you folks is that you go on TV, newspapers and other public media to make claims that go against the grains of common sense and rational thoughts, then when we rebuke, repudiate and mock you, you take offence.

The very fact that you spend time attacking Christian and other religious beliefs that go against yours ought to make you realize that your own beliefs shall always fall under strutiny as well.

The ongoing TB Joshua Tragi-Comedy clearly demonstrate the dangers of large members of society subscribing to worldviews founded on delusions and perpetuated by fraud,...and led by an illiterate.

plaetton:
What are we debating, and what points have advanced to support your position?