johnydon22:


You are yet to show the post, please KingEbukasBlog help me correct this, I am tired of replying this outright misrepresentation due to lack of attentiveness

I always read ALL comments!
Your comments are not my problem but your underlying argument based on examples you cited.

Pay closer attention when making comments. Every comment has a motive. I saw yours.

spacetacular:


Still fantasy! The earth had just the right composition? WHY? why was this so? Why Was This composition JUST RIGHT?

again you make another fantasy Laden comment by saying THERE COULD BE OTHER LIFE FORMS ON OTHER PLANETS and used this assumption or fantasy to arrive at the conclusion that my fine tuning theory does not fly. You used the word COULD which is an assumption yet you drew a conclusion from it.

J.ohnydon22, the comment by c.atfishbilly proves my point.

Fantasy is science fiction and not fact. Perhaps they will listen to you when you tell them.

My position of the fine tuning argument was based on your stand that earth was designed perfectly to support life not the plausibilityof extraterrestrial life.
Notice I said "could" it wasn't a definitive statement.
Besides a lot of scientists think its plausible.
If you want to discuss this, open another thread.

spacetacular:


I need you to speak the truth. Being one of a kind with catfishbilly does not mean you have to brush aside his ridiculous assertions but when I make same you latch unto them.

He makes and has made some rather fantasy riddled claims and you suddenly could not read.

Please take people up on their arguments, I am not one with anyone. I am me, I have my own ideas and opinions.

Please focus your arguments and don't try to define a set of people based on an assumption derived from 1.

This will be my last reply to you here unless I am presented with something worth my time

KingEbukasBlog:


Thank you my brother !!

You dont argue against God's existence by being skeptical of religion - that has been the point oo .

But you are also free to be a religious skeptic whether you are an atheist or not, yes?

CatfishBilly:

My position of the fine tuning argument was based on your stand that earth was designed perfectly to support life not the plausibilityof extraterrestrial life.
Notice I said "could" it wasn't a definitive statement.
Besides a lot of scientists think its plausible.
If you want to discuss this, open another thread.

My question was a simple one. Why would you use an assumption to rubbish a claim? Is that how the science you know works?

The scientists who think this is plausible have they shown you proof or further assumptions? Why build your entire life and argument around an assumption?

johnydon22:


Please take people up on their arguments, I am not one with anyone. I am me, I have my own ideas and opinions.

Please focus your arguments and don't try to define a set of people based on an assumption derived from 1.

This will be my last reply to you here unless I am presented with something worth my time

My apologies Mr lofty. Good thing you noticed they are also ASSUMPTIONS!

Why don't you try presenting arguments worthy of our time or even mine. A lot of your posturing too has been built on fantasy and not scientific fact.

johnydon22:


But you are also free to be a religious skeptic whether you are an atheist or not, yes?

Yes of course

KingEbukasBlog:

Just like Felixomor told you , if it cannot be tested , then what's the purpose of assuming ? Its funny that your reasoning on God does not extend to your fantasies and speculations



The eternal universe models including Aguirre's and Sean Carrol's don't work according to my research . Lawrence Krass and Dr Craig discussed that in their debate .

Please since when did speculations become evidence ? They simply reversed what Borde , Guth and Vilenkin did

They didn't work according to your research or because it didn't agree with your position?
I'm yet to see a scientific paper that refutes Aguirre's model, if you have one, kindly post it here. WLC isn't a theoretical physicist.

Theists have been at the helm of scientific progress . So what are you saying ? Atheism on the other hand started with fantasies and imaginations and atheists try to use science to prove their imaginations and fantasies - this is basically what is going onwith atheist cosmologists.

So, provide papers by the theist scientific community that presented irrefutable evidence that it was god.

Hawking did , he claimed that the universe created itself because there is a law such as gravity .

Take it up with Hawking.
Hawking doesn't know, Lennox doesn't know too. It's simple.

KingEbukasBlog:


Yes of course

So what then is the issue

KingEbukasBlog:


Yes of course

Then the case is closed brother.

We can now see it is neither stupid or misplaced for an atheist to discuss/talk about religion.

I think the whole point can be summarized thus: It is infantile to employ religious skepticism as a means to negate the existence of God but you can still be a religious skeptic whether you believe in God or not.

spacetacular:



My question was a simple one. Why would you use an assumption to rubbish a claim? Is that how the science you know works?

The scientists who think this is plausible have they shown you proof or further assumptions? Why build your entire life and argument around an assumption?

Jesus Christ.
What part of "My position of the fine tuning argument was based on your stand that earth was designed perfectly to support life not the plausibility of extraterrestrial life" don't you understand?

CatfishBilly:

Jesus Christ.
What part of "My position of the fine tuning argument was based on your stand that earth was designed perfectly to support life not the plausibility of extraterrestrial life" don't you understand?

LMAO

johnydon22:


I am quite certain that the possibilities of other galaxies was once a subject of science fiction.

Rev fr geodano Bruno was burnt at the stake for daring to assume there may be countless number of worlds some inhabited.

The Multiverse theory is just as much inclusion of external influence as God, no less observationally feasible as God.

So as I have maintained the lesson is clear: these are of no relevance within our space/time (universe)

Not really , the multiverse theory hopes to replace God but it does not . God could have created a world ensemble but of course there is no reason to assume he did .

CatfishBilly:

Jesus Christ.
What part of "My position of the fine tuning argument was based on your stand that earth was designed perfectly to support life not the plausibility of extraterrestrial life" don't you understand?

I do not think you quite understand yourself.

Are you refuting my position just for the fun of it based on the fact that I had that position and naturally as an atheist since my position speaks for creation and an eternal being you just had the urge to use anything to refute it or you actually want to sound sensible?

Either way you simply refuted my claim using an assumption be it deliberate or for fun. Why do this?

You hold the belief that my claims of God are mere assumptions which is why you argue God daily but here you are making same assumptions and trying to dig up reasons why you made them?

Wow! Just wow!

johnydon22:


LMAO

Exactly! Suddenly you can read again!

CatfishBilly:

They didn't work according to your research or because it didn't agree with your position?
I'm yet to see a scientific paper that refutes Aguirre's model, if you have one, kindly post it here. WLC isn't a theoretical physicist.

So you didn't see Vilenkin's comment on it ?

So, provide papers by the theist scientific community that presented irrefutable evidence that it was god.

Scientists have already rejected the theory , there is no evidence to support the theory , it simply does not work - no eternal universe model has ever worked . What is there to refute ?

Take it up with Hawking.
Hawking doesn't know, Lennox doesn't know too. It's simple.

Let people speak for themselves , when did you become their mouthpiece . Your comfort zone is uncertainty , speculations and fantasies and you'll do anything to pull anyone into it .

spacetacular:


I do not think you quite understand yourself.

Are you refuting my position just for the fun of it based on the fact that I had that position and naturally as an atheist since my position speaks for creation and an eternal being you just had the urge to use anything to refute it or you actually want to sound sensible?

Either way you simply refuted my claim using an assumption be it deliberate or for fun. Why do this?

You hold the belief that my claims of God are mere assumptions which is why you argue God daily but here you are making same assumptions and trying to dig up reasons why you made them?

Wow! Just wow!

Okay.

spacetacular:


I do not think you quite understand yourself.

Are you refuting my position just for the fun of it based on the fact that I had that position and naturally as an atheist since my position speaks for creation and an eternal being you just had the urge to use anything to refute it or you actually want to sound sensible?

Either way you simply refuted my claim using an assumption be it deliberate or for fun. Why do this?

You hold the belief that my claims of God are mere assumptions which is why you argue God daily but here you are making same assumptions and trying to dig up reasons why you made them?

Wow! Just wow!

An atheist is never aware of his own assumptions.

KingEbukasBlog:


So you didn't see Vilenkin's comment on it ?




Scientists have already rejected the theory , there is no evidence to support the theory , it simply does not work - no eternal universe model has ever worked . What is there to refute ?





Let people speak for themselves , when did you become their mouthpiece . Your comfort zone is uncertainty , speculations and fantasies and you'll do anything to pull anyone into it .

The multiverse theory has never worked and has never been accepted! I wonder where he gets his "fantastic"facts from?

felixomor:


An atheist is never aware of his own assumptions.

Amazing isn't it? They see everyone else's flaws but theirs.

johnydon22:


Then the case is closed brother.

We can now see it is neither stupid or misplaced for an atheist to discuss/talk about religion.

I think the whole point can be summarized thus: It is infantile to employ religious skepticism as a means to negate the existence of God but you can still be a religious skeptic whether you believe in God or not.

It is not case closed . All I'm saying is that it does not make sense to argue endlessly about religion when it does not have anything to do with the existence of God that's why I called it 'stupid' . Time wasting , makes no sense , no purpose so why do it ? Why can't we always talk about God like we are doing now ?

To prove my point , I'll mention you whenever an atheist opens a thread about religion . He has to give us reasons or else its just empty fruitless unnecessary arguments he wants to engage in . But of course , his reasons would be that it questions the existence of God and we are back to square one .

KingEbukasBlog:


It is not case closed . All I'm saying is that it does not make sense to argue endlessly about religion when it does not have anything to do with the existence of God that's why I called it 'stupid' . Time wasting , makes no sense , no purpose so why do it ? Why can't we always talk about God like we are doing now ?

To prove my point , I'll mention you whenever an atheist opens a thread about religion . He has to give us reasons or else its just empty fruitless unnecessary arguments he wants to engage in . But of course , his reasons would be that it questions the existence of God and we are back to square one .

Succinct!

KingEbukasBlog:


So you didn't see Vilenkin's comment on it ?

Vilenkin's comment, not a paper, since when did scientific models start getting rejected by offhand comments and not papers?

Scientists have already rejected the theory , there is no evidence to support the theory , it simply does not work - no eternal universe model has ever worked . What is there to refute ?

You're getting it wrong, this statement started when I said nobody knows the origin of the universe, theists said therefore it's god and you backed that up that theists have been in the forefront of sciences, so I asked for you to provide papers written by these theist scientists that it was god.

Let people speak for themselves , when did you become their mouthpiece . Your comfort zone is uncertainty , speculations and fantasies and you'll do anything to pull anyone into it .

So, what's the right way? Say that it was god when you have no evidence? Or can't even explain how the god supposedly did it?

KingEbukasBlog:


It is not case closed . All I'm saying is that it does not make sense to argue endlessly about religion when it does not have anything to do with the existence of God that's why I called it 'stupid' .

I thought we have established the fact that one can talk about religion independent of the premise of Gods existence.

Time wasting , makes no sense , no purpose so why do it ? Why can't we always talk about God like we are doing now ?

Someone might just want to be a religious skeptic, aren't they free to be anymore?

To prove my point , I'll mention you whenever an atheist opens a thread about religion .

are they not allowed to be religious skeptics?

If they are allowed then on what ground are we raising the alarm.

He has to give us reasons or else its just empty fruitless unnecessary arguments he wants to engage in . But of course , his reasons would be that it questions the existence of God and we are back to square one .

There is a symbol in Catholic liturgy, a ship and a sea. This symbolizes that the church is a ship that ferries humans across the sea of worldly attachments to heaven.

So an atheist attacking the concept of God may do so often due to the fact that the concept of God is always ferried across a ship of religion at least in theism.

I'm sure if he wants to attack deism he won't also bring up the Quran or veda as points to use.

We are about heading back to where we started

johnydon22:
I thought we have established the fact that one can talk about religion independent of the premise of Gods existence.



Someone might just want to be a religious skeptic, aren't they free to be anymore?

are they not allowed to be religious skeptics?

If they are allowed then on what ground are we raising the alarm.



There is a symbol in Catholic liturgy, a ship and a sea. This symbolizes that the church is a ship that ferries humans across the sea of worldly attachments to heaven.

So an atheist attacking the concept of God may do so often due to the fact that the concept of God is always ferried across a ship of religion at least in theism.

I'm sure if he wants to attack deism he won't also bring up the Quran or veda as points to use.

We are about heading back to where we started

What amazes me about you Johnny is that you always seem to expect a better argument or more rational thinking from theists. At the end of your epistles they are only going to reply with something meaningless

But it is fun reading your epistles sha

KingEbukasBlog are religious people also allowed to argue for the existence of God based on the tenets and claims of their religion?

Or should they only talk about God via cosmology and directly "God"

spacetacular:


The multiverse theory has never worked and has never been accepted! I wonder where he gets his "fantastic"facts from?

Exactly . No multiverse theory has ever worked , eternal universe models have no evidence to support them . All evidence show the universe has a beginning . Asserting that there could other universes before this one is mere speculation . The same way there is no reason to speculate infinite number of creators , Occam's razor deals with choosing simpler explanations . And since the advent of science , God has always been the best explanation for the universe .

Its funny how they scream "infinite regress" with the usual illogical question "who created God" but are ready to accept that the universe has been changing forms from past infinitude . What caused the change ? How does information pass from one form to another without any beginning ? They won't bother to answer . Its just not God .

johnydon22:
I thought we have established the fact that one can talk about religion independent of the premise of Gods existence.

Of course , the same way I'm allowed to dance on the main road unclad .

Someone might just want to be a religious skeptic, aren't they free to be anymore?

are they not allowed to be religious skeptics?

If they are allowed then on what ground are we raising the alarm

Because our time is being wasted . What's the point when other adherents of religions and even the deists can do the same ? And when these guys do it , we immediately understand their reasons .

There is a symbol in Catholic liturgy, a ship and a sea. This symbolizes that the church is a ship that ferries humans across the sea of worldly attachments to heaven.

So an atheist attacking the concept of God may do so often due to the fact that the concept of God is always ferried across a ship of religion at least in theism.

I'm sure if he wants to attack deism he won't also bring up the Quran or veda as points to use.

We are about heading back to where we started

Thank God you know . Its understandable when a deist and other theists criticize religions . But when an irreligious atheist does it , I don't know , it just does not make sense .

You do realize that he can't escape claiming that it questions the existence of God . See what I'm talking about to be clear

Davidgrey:
The "bible" is apparently the only evidence that supposedly proofs the existence of god

Now if that "evidence" is undermined and questioned(factually proven to be wrong) that inadvertently declares your "god" nonexistent.

johnydon22:
KingEbukasBlog are religious people also allowed to argue for the existence of God based on the tenets and claims of their religion?

Or should they only talk about God via cosmology and directly "God"

When religious people argue they are making a case : my religion is better . Most theistic religions argue for the reasons for deifying entities .

When discussing with a Jew , or Muslim , we don't argue for the existence of God ; we just want them to see why Christianity portrays the true nature of God and the verity of a Godhead . I tell a Jew or Muslim why Jesus is the son of God basically and we argue for the resurrection of Christ and why He is deified in Christianity .

If I should argue with a non theistic religious person Eg a Confucian , Ill give him reasons why moral laws in the bible are much better than the morality Confucius indited in his books . There is always a purpose that's what I'm trying to say .

KingEbukasBlog:


Of course , the same way I'm allowed to dance on the main road unclad

perhaps

Because our time is being wasted . What's the point when other adherents of religions and even the deists can do the same ? And when these guys do it , we immediately understand their reasons .

as are obviously saving our time debating who is allowed to criticize religion or not

Thank God you know . Its understandable when a deist and other theists criticize religions . But when an irreligious atheist does it , I don't know , it just does not make sense .

Below answer of yours answers this perfectly

johnydon22:


But you are also free to be a religious skeptic whether you are an atheist or not, yes?

KingEbukasBlog:


Yes of course

You do realize that he can't escape claiming that it questions the existence of God . See what I'm talking about to be clear

Can a religious person also claim that his religious beliefs and ideas proves the existence of God?

You and I cannot deny people always use religion to ferry God, to deny this is to live in denial.

So if a theist can use religion to argue for God, someone else can also do same to argue against it.

The fair jurisdiction is: if an atheist cannot use religion against God when in such an argument centered around religion and God then a theist cannot use religion for God.

KingEbukasBlog:


When religious people argue they are making a case : my religion is better . Most theistic religions argue for the reasons for deifying entities .

So religious people don't use their religious beliefs as an argument against atheists?

KingEbukasBlog:


Exactly . No multiverse theory has ever worked , eternal universe models have no evidence to support them . All evidence show the universe has a beginning . Asserting that there could other universes before this one is mere speculation . The same way there is no reason to speculate infinite number of creators , Occam's razor deals with choosing simpler explanations . And since the advent of science , God has always been the best explanation for the universe .

Its funny how they scream "infinite regress" with the usual illogical question "who created God" but are ready to accept that the universe has been changing forms from past infinitude . What caused the change ? How does information pass from one form to another without any beginning ? They won't bother to answer . Its just not God .

Any outlandish unproven theory works for an atheist as long as it has nothing to do with an eternal creator God.

Even if a scientists proposes a theory that talks about cross universes that are linked via a time warp which enables us to experience other universes at the same time thereby giving credence to nostalgia or things like that and that the big bang was simply this universe warping through a worm hole so we can experience a universe we just interfaced with and eventually the big crunch would be us about to warp through another worm hole into another universe the atheist community would jump on it and begin to carry around this fantasy as fact during discussions.

It beats my imagination really.