Thinking about it.. an afterlife doesn't make sense, sadly

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: videogames101
The wristwatch was made by life, a wristwatch can't reproduce.

Anyways, your arguing the 747 arguement.

Your saying the universe is so unlikely it must have a creator.



Your arguing against your position, enter the ultimate 747.

God

An omnipotent being thats always existed. What the hell are the chances of that coming about on it's own?

Are you serious? I don't think you guys realize you are arguing FOR a creation of some sort. If you think the the wristwatch could not be made without life, which is by comparison multitudes less complex than the universe, then why do you think the universe came to be without design?

Seems funny you don't realize what you're saying or at the very minimum - don't understand my point.

It's you don't understand what we're saying. While your point is childish.

Let's try this again, eh? Have you gotten past basic 8th grade algebra yet? Good, then let's hope you understand the Cartesian grid. The universe is -- figuratively, but quite really -- an infinitely expanding grid of infinite right-angle dimensions. 3 of these dimensions we call space. The rest we call time. Of those infinite time dimensions, we exist along one in which 'intelligent' life did come about, as evidenced by the fact that we exist to talk about it.
That's it. If you roll the bones enough times, every conceivable outcome will eventually come about. There's nothing complex about that.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: videogames101
You don't understand that a complex object that can't reproduce requires life to exist? The first forms of life was simply RNA organized by clay, Learn evolution before knocking it.

First off - I haven't said a thing about evolution. If you want to compare what I'm saying to evolution that is your own prerogative. Its a simple question / comparison.

According to you - A complex object that can't reproduce requires life to exist... It just baffles me you don't see the irony here.

I suppose the universe isn't complex? Are you telling me the universe reproduces? What scale has to be matched to be considered "reproducing"?

I was comparing complex laws to simple laws plain and simple. The simple laws we know how they came about (or at least - Their IMMEDIATE previous step). The complex laws are what are left to be questioned.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: videogames101
You don't understand that a complex object that can't reproduce requires life to exist? The first forms of life was simply RNA organized by clay, Learn evolution before knocking it.

First off - I haven't said a thing about evolution. If you want to compare what I'm saying to evolution that is your own prerogative. Its a simple question / comparison.

According to you - A complex object that can't reproduce requires life to exist... It just baffles me you don't see the irony here.

I suppose the universe isn't complex? Are you telling me the universe reproduces? What scale has to be matched to be considered "reproducing"?

I was comparing complex laws to simple laws plain and simple. The simple laws we know how they came about (or at least - Their IMMEDIATE previous step). The complex laws are what are left to be questioned.

Ok, I'll concede the watch thing there was a bad, complex things can exist without life. Laws are observations, so what your after is accurate theories about why those laws exist, right? In that case, I'm ot sure what were arguing, because we can't observe anything before the big bang, or even analyze very well directly why it happened, so I doubt we'll ever have a complete explanation.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

No, if we were talking about any claim, as in, negative or positive claims you'd be right. But as you can see above, basic math shows you that the number of true positive claims is dwarfed by the number of claims I can make, giving a probability of 99.9999% false as a standard belief for a positive claim.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Vic

It's you don't understand what we're saying. While your point is childish.

Let's try this again, eh? Have you gotten past basic 8th grade algebra yet? Good, then let's hope you understand the Cartesian grid. The universe is -- figuratively, but quite really -- an infinitely expanding grid of infinite right-angle dimensions. 3 of these dimensions we call space. The rest we call time. Of those infinite time dimensions, we exist along one in which 'intelligent' life did come about, as evidenced by the fact that we exist to talk about it.
That's it. If you roll the bones enough times, every conceivable outcome will eventually come about. There's nothing complex about that.

Typical line of defense of insulting someone. How is this not childish?

I get what you're both saying. Its a simple theory - if something has a probability then given enough time it is going to occur (in simple terms).

If you believe the watch can come into existence on its own then good for you. I didn't say my thoughts had to be everyone else's thoughts. Hence this is a discussion board.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Leafy

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Why shouldn't one kill another if he feels good in doing that? why one shouldn't steal? why one shouldn't lie?

Because we're not DICKS.

right...can you tell me why are we like that? in other words 'good nature'.

Because it's good for the survival of the species? Clearly a being which murders its family is not going to pass its genes on. There's nothing wrong in evolutionary terms with murdering your enemies, but people do that all the time, and tend to be very happy about it afterwards.

All of these questions about morality, humanity, intellect etc cannot be answered because they are beyond the field of reasoning, that which we call afterlife, God or whatever. Human beings cannot be unkind, cruel, untruthful - if they are then they are doing it under pressure of circumstances with sufficient guilt.

The idea that we can't explain things like love and hate with science is completely ridiculous - they're just chemical reactions in your brain which evolved for a purpose, just as much as your feet, or your lungs.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

No, if we were talking about any claim, as in, negative or positive claims you'd be right. But as you can see above, basic math shows you that the number of true positive claims is dwarfed by the number of claims I can make, giving a probability of 99.9999% false as a standard belief for a positive claim.

The universe isn't a democracy. Reality doesn't care what you believe or the number of claims you might pretend to make. You're just invoking a small-minded excuse for your straw men here, as though all claims were equal. That isn't so.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: videogames101
Ok, I'll concede the watch thing there was a bad, complex things can exist without life. Laws are observations, so what your after is accurate theories about why those laws exist, right? In that case, I'm ot sure what were arguing, because we can't observe anything before the big bang, or even analyze very well directly why it happened, so I doubt we'll ever have a complete explanation.

I agree with your last sentence for the most part. it is what you choose to hold as true versus what is actually true. No one can prove for an absolute fact in either direction, however what is true exists with or without our beliefs / thoughts / science / anything.

I also agree its hard to have this "argument", because no one alive and no reference available has the exact facts to it.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Leafy

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Why shouldn't one kill another if he feels good in doing that? why one shouldn't steal? why one shouldn't lie?

Because we're not DICKS.

right...can you tell me why are we like that? in other words 'good nature'.

By your logic, assuming you mean religion is the source of morals, slavery should be legal.

Point is, I can be a good person without the threat of hell over by head, I guess i'm just a better person than you?

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

No, if we were talking about any claim, as in, negative or positive claims you'd be right. But as you can see above, basic math shows you that the number of true positive claims is dwarfed by the number of claims I can make, giving a probability of 99.9999% false as a standard belief for a positive claim.

The universe isn't a democracy. Reality doesn't care what you believe or the number of claims you might pretend to make. You're just invoking a small-minded excuse for your straw men here, as though all claims were equal. That isn't so.

What the fvck? The majority of possible positive claims we can make are FALSE. What does this have anything to do with a straw man?

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: videogames101
Ok, I'll concede the watch thing there was a bad, complex things can exist without life. Laws are observations, so what your after is accurate theories about why those laws exist, right? In that case, I'm ot sure what were arguing, because we can't observe anything before the big bang, or even analyze very well directly why it happened, so I doubt we'll ever have a complete explanation.

I agree with your last sentence for the most part. it is what you choose to hold as true versus what is actually true. No one can prove for an absolute fact in either direction, however what is true exists with or without our beliefs / thoughts / science / anything.

I also agree its hard to have this "argument", because no one alive and no reference available has the exact facts to it.

But, we differ in that a claim such as a Christian god (or w/e god you believe in, if any) should be considered false. Because we have no evidence for it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Vic

It's you don't understand what we're saying. While your point is childish.

Let's try this again, eh? Have you gotten past basic 8th grade algebra yet? Good, then let's hope you understand the Cartesian grid. The universe is -- figuratively, but quite really -- an infinitely expanding grid of infinite right-angle dimensions. 3 of these dimensions we call space. The rest we call time. Of those infinite time dimensions, we exist along one in which 'intelligent' life did come about, as evidenced by the fact that we exist to talk about it.
That's it. If you roll the bones enough times, every conceivable outcome will eventually come about. There's nothing complex about that.

Typical line of defense of insulting someone. How is this not childish?

I get what you're both saying. Its a simple theory - if something has a probability then given enough time it is going to occur (in simple terms).

If you believe the watch can come into existence on its own then good for you. I didn't say my thoughts had to be everyone else's thoughts. Hence this is a discussion board.

I'm not insulting you, I'm annoyed by you. There's a difference.

The watch didn't come into existence on its own, humans made it. Humans didn't come into existence on their own, the conditions of the universe made us.
Now, God might exist and God might not, but the argument that His 'design' was necessary to bring this about has no backing anywhere to be found. You're just lumping our ignorance into a ball and calling that 'God.' Which IMO is not particularly respectful.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

No, if we were talking about any claim, as in, negative or positive claims you'd be right. But as you can see above, basic math shows you that the number of true positive claims is dwarfed by the number of claims I can make, giving a probability of 99.9999% false as a standard belief for a positive claim.

The universe isn't a democracy. Reality doesn't care what you believe or the number of claims you might pretend to make. You're just invoking a small-minded excuse for your straw men here, as though all claims were equal. That isn't so.

What the fvck? The majority of possible positive claims we can make are FALSE. What does this have anything to do with a straw man?

All claims are not equal. Is this confusing or something?

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

No, if we were talking about any claim, as in, negative or positive claims you'd be right. But as you can see above, basic math shows you that the number of true positive claims is dwarfed by the number of claims I can make, giving a probability of 99.9999% false as a standard belief for a positive claim.

The universe isn't a democracy. Reality doesn't care what you believe or the number of claims you might pretend to make. You're just invoking a small-minded excuse for your straw men here, as though all claims were equal. That isn't so.

What the fvck? The majority of possible positive claims we can make are FALSE. What does this have anything to do with a straw man?

yeah I agree.

While I have no idea what point Video is trying to make here (other than there are infinitely more false statements than positives), what he says makes sense.

Whether or not it applies to what his point is remains to be seem.

However, if this is his point, it makes complete sense from start to finish...

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

No, if we were talking about any claim, as in, negative or positive claims you'd be right. But as you can see above, basic math shows you that the number of true positive claims is dwarfed by the number of claims I can make, giving a probability of 99.9999% false as a standard belief for a positive claim.

The universe isn't a democracy. Reality doesn't care what you believe or the number of claims you might pretend to make. You're just invoking a small-minded excuse for your straw men here, as though all claims were equal. That isn't so.

What the fvck? The majority of possible positive claims we can make are FALSE. What does this have anything to do with a straw man?

yeah I agree.

While I have no idea what point Video is trying to make here (other than there are infinitely more false statements than positives), what he says makes sense.

Whether or not it applies to what his point is remains to be seem.

However, if this is his point, it makes complete sense from start to finish...

My point is, religion makes a positive claim, and because those claims have no evidence, their probability of truth is near 0%, and a rational person shouldn't believe them.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

No, if we were talking about any claim, as in, negative or positive claims you'd be right. But as you can see above, basic math shows you that the number of true positive claims is dwarfed by the number of claims I can make, giving a probability of 99.9999% false as a standard belief for a positive claim.

The universe isn't a democracy. Reality doesn't care what you believe or the number of claims you might pretend to make. You're just invoking a small-minded excuse for your straw men here, as though all claims were equal. That isn't so.

What the fvck? The majority of possible positive claims we can make are FALSE. What does this have anything to do with a straw man?

All claims are not equal. Is this confusing or something?

This is assuming all these claims have no evidence, as soon as evidence is present, the probability of truth changes, this is just to make the point that a claim for which there is no evidence shouldn't be believed.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Vic

It's you don't understand what we're saying. While your point is childish.

Let's try this again, eh? Have you gotten past basic 8th grade algebra yet? Good, then let's hope you understand the Cartesian grid. The universe is -- figuratively, but quite really -- an infinitely expanding grid of infinite right-angle dimensions. 3 of these dimensions we call space. The rest we call time. Of those infinite time dimensions, we exist along one in which 'intelligent' life did come about, as evidenced by the fact that we exist to talk about it.
That's it. If you roll the bones enough times, every conceivable outcome will eventually come about. There's nothing complex about that.

Typical line of defense of insulting someone. How is this not childish?

I get what you're both saying. Its a simple theory - if something has a probability then given enough time it is going to occur (in simple terms).

If you believe the watch can come into existence on its own then good for you. I didn't say my thoughts had to be everyone else's thoughts. Hence this is a discussion board.

I'm not insulting you, I'm annoyed by you. There's a difference.

The watch didn't come into existence on its own, humans made it. Humans didn't come into existence on their own, the conditions of the universe made us.
Now, God might exist and God might not, but the argument that His 'design' was necessary to bring this about has no backing anywhere to be found. You're just lumping our ignorance into a ball and calling that 'God.' Which IMO is not particularly respectful.

Yes there is a difference. Being annoyed isn't verbally expressed until you do so, which you did, which resulted in insulting statements which I can safely extract were directed at me.

I didn't say anything about a "God" in my statements. Please point out where I said that.

It is interesting to note, though, that you derived that somehow from what I said. I stated the simple laws could not come into existence on their own (to me) so I do not believe complex laws could have either.

Each of these replies have been "adding" to my original post. If you felt something was implied, that doesn't mean that is what I said.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
First, my parents are completely open to whatever religion I wanted to follow, including none.

Second, I'm arguing against the majority not the minority?

Third, thats just semantics, god exists or not, call it supernatural or natural, existence is still a binary condition.

Wrong, for a positive claim, that is, a claim that something exists, the default position is negative. Example: The Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, etc.

Understand, it's not a negative like, NO THEY DON"T EXIST, but rather, there is very little probability that they exist. I can epxress default negative like this:

(Things That Exist) = Finite Number
(Things I can Claim Exist) = Infinite Number

so, the chance that my claim is true

(Things That Exist)/(Things I can Claim Exist)
=
99.9999...% negative

Whee... straw men are fun!

:roll:

The default position is null. As is ZERO.

No, if we were talking about any claim, as in, negative or positive claims you'd be right. But as you can see above, basic math shows you that the number of true positive claims is dwarfed by the number of claims I can make, giving a probability of 99.9999% false as a standard belief for a positive claim.

The universe isn't a democracy. Reality doesn't care what you believe or the number of claims you might pretend to make. You're just invoking a small-minded excuse for your straw men here, as though all claims were equal. That isn't so.

What the fvck? The majority of possible positive claims we can make are FALSE. What does this have anything to do with a straw man?

yeah I agree.

While I have no idea what point Video is trying to make here (other than there are infinitely more false statements than positives), what he says makes sense.

Whether or not it applies to what his point is remains to be seem.

However, if this is his point, it makes complete sense from start to finish...

Sigh... of course you agree, because an insistence that one's beliefs actually mean something to reality is what makes atheists and religionists so similar. When the truth is that reality doesn't care WTF you believe. Your beliefs are for shit. Both sides only hold to this ridiculous fallacy for need of wanting everyone else to follow your beliefs as well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Vic

It's you don't understand what we're saying. While your point is childish.

Let's try this again, eh? Have you gotten past basic 8th grade algebra yet? Good, then let's hope you understand the Cartesian grid. The universe is -- figuratively, but quite really -- an infinitely expanding grid of infinite right-angle dimensions. 3 of these dimensions we call space. The rest we call time. Of those infinite time dimensions, we exist along one in which 'intelligent' life did come about, as evidenced by the fact that we exist to talk about it.
That's it. If you roll the bones enough times, every conceivable outcome will eventually come about. There's nothing complex about that.

Typical line of defense of insulting someone. How is this not childish?

I get what you're both saying. Its a simple theory - if something has a probability then given enough time it is going to occur (in simple terms).

If you believe the watch can come into existence on its own then good for you. I didn't say my thoughts had to be everyone else's thoughts. Hence this is a discussion board.

I'm not insulting you, I'm annoyed by you. There's a difference.

The watch didn't come into existence on its own, humans made it. Humans didn't come into existence on their own, the conditions of the universe made us.
Now, God might exist and God might not, but the argument that His 'design' was necessary to bring this about has no backing anywhere to be found. You're just lumping our ignorance into a ball and calling that 'God.' Which IMO is not particularly respectful.

Yes there is a difference. Being annoyed isn't verbally expressed until you do so, which you did, which resulted in insulting statements which I can safely extract were directed at me.

I didn't say anything about a "God" in my statements. Please point out where I said that.

It is interesting to note, though, that you derived that somehow from what I said. I stated the simple laws could not come into existence on their own (to me) so I do not believe complex laws could have either.

Each of these replies have been "adding" to my original post. If you felt something was implied, that doesn't mean that is what I said.

"Intelligent design" is just code for God creationism. Don't be a deceitful coward.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: videogames101
My point is, religion makes a positive claim, and because those claims have no evidence, their probability of truth is near 0%, and a rational person shouldn't believe them.

This is a weak argument because "positive" is a point of opinion and opinion isn't fact.

Either way, something is true or it isn't regardless of the nature of its affect (positive or negative).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: videogames101
This is assuming all these claims have no evidence, as soon as evidence is present, the probability of truth changes, this is just to make the point that a claim for which there is no evidence shouldn't be believed.

Your claim that God doesn't exist has just as much evidence as religions' claim that God does exist.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tweak155

Originally posted by: Vic

It's you don't understand what we're saying. While your point is childish.

Let's try this again, eh? Have you gotten past basic 8th grade algebra yet? Good, then let's hope you understand the Cartesian grid. The universe is -- figuratively, but quite really -- an infinitely expanding grid of infinite right-angle dimensions. 3 of these dimensions we call space. The rest we call time. Of those infinite time dimensions, we exist along one in which 'intelligent' life did come about, as evidenced by the fact that we exist to talk about it.
That's it. If you roll the bones enough times, every conceivable outcome will eventually come about. There's nothing complex about that.

Typical line of defense of insulting someone. How is this not childish?

I get what you're both saying. Its a simple theory - if something has a probability then given enough time it is going to occur (in simple terms).

If you believe the watch can come into existence on its own then good for you. I didn't say my thoughts had to be everyone else's thoughts. Hence this is a discussion board.

I'm not insulting you, I'm annoyed by you. There's a difference.

The watch didn't come into existence on its own, humans made it. Humans didn't come into existence on their own, the conditions of the universe made us.
Now, God might exist and God might not, but the argument that His 'design' was necessary to bring this about has no backing anywhere to be found. You're just lumping our ignorance into a ball and calling that 'God.' Which IMO is not particularly respectful.

Yes there is a difference. Being annoyed isn't verbally expressed until you do so, which you did, which resulted in insulting statements which I can safely extract were directed at me.

I didn't say anything about a "God" in my statements. Please point out where I said that.

It is interesting to note, though, that you derived that somehow from what I said. I stated the simple laws could not come into existence on their own (to me) so I do not believe complex laws could have either.

Each of these replies have been "adding" to my original post. If you felt something was implied, that doesn't mean that is what I said.

Why can't laws come into existence on their own? The universe obviously exists, and the laws thereof are conditions of the universe, so basically, when the universe comes into existence, it's laws are elements of that universe. The laws came into existence the same way the universe did, most likely, the big bang.

 

[Tweak155]

Originally posted by: Vic
Sigh... of course you agree, because an insistence that one's beliefs actually mean something to reality is what makes atheists and religionists so similar. When the truth is that reality doesn't care WTF you believe. Your beliefs are for shit. Both sides only hold to this ridiculous fallacy for need of wanting everyone else to follow your beliefs as well.

You crack me up. What does the fact that there are infinitely more negatives than positives have to do with religion? What did anything I had to say have to do with religion or politics?

Feel free to ignore these questions as I wont expect you not to.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: videogames101
This is assuming all these claims have no evidence, as soon as evidence is present, the probability of truth changes, this is just to make the point that a claim for which there is no evidence shouldn't be believed.

Your claim that God doesn't exist has just as much evidence as religions' claim that God does exist.

See, I didn't claim god didn't exist, just that he probably didn't, and that would be a negative claim anyways, and would have a 99% probability of being true anyways.