Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

4 Step Perfect Proof for God


Parture

Recommended Posts

I don't think anyone is purposely accusing you of being Troy

 

I was meaning this in such a way that white_raven23 said things from the quote I made ...

 

Troy ...

 

I've said it before......I'll say it again. If there is a god, any justice at all in the universe, you will be prevented from breeding.

 

And while I was trying to say that has been effecting me in the same manner, I didn't want to be thought of as Troy or equal to Troy so to speak. But for some reason what was said was having a more real effect occuring in my life and found this errie. I didn't want such expressions to be that real even if I wasn't Troy for which this was directed towards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • -Demona-

    6

  • quicksand

    6

  • Vigile

    6

  • Ouroboros

    5

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

:eek:   I'm not Troy!

 

White Raven wasn't refering to you, Nimbus. Troy is the original poster of this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

White Raven wasn't refering to you, Nimbus. Troy is the original poster of this thread.

 

Right! I know. Something in the the last 35 years in my life has been keeping me from breeding. That statement that was refering to Troy, I was saying was really happening to me. Even though I'm not the one for which this statement was being refered to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right!  I know.  Something in the the last 35 years in my life has been keeping me from breeding.  That statement that was refering to Troy, I was saying was really happening to me.  Even though I'm not the one for which this statement was being refered to.

Well you did have a lota smileys to hint at that. I guess we are pretty dense sometimes eh?

 

Don't give up on the women, though. It MUST happen some time if you keep looking for a gal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, sorry mate - totally not convinced. Nice try but no cigar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chided Troy once that since humans are no longer pefect, cause of sin, how does he think he can offer a "perfect" proof for god?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Sorry for the bad grammer and bad spelling, I hope this helps you understand where I stand and maybe other people as well ENJOY PASTURE)

 

Creationists keep asking that their theory be taken seriously, as a scientific theory. Well, this is where we discover yet another problem with Creationism: there is no Creation Theory. No creationist has ever submitted a formal scientific research paper on this nebulous concept known as "creation theory"; they prefer to bypass the scientific community and take their case directly to laypeople and politicians (who presumably are better qualified to judge scientific merit). Every creationist has a different idea of what "creation theory" is, and the majority of them prefer not to pin it down, so that they can alter it "on the fly" in order to evade your criticisms.

 

Although there have been, as previously noted, no formal scientific research papers submitted to peer-reviewed journals regarding this "theory", and there are a virtually infinite number of permutations, most "creation theories" tend to fall into the following categories:

 

Biblical inerrancy-based "Young Earth Creationism". This theory claims that Genesis is 100% factual and literal. Of course, that is impossible, since a purely literal interpretation of Genesis fails the fundamental test of self-consistency as described in the previous section. It is also inconsistent with all of the geological and astrophysical evidence, since it proposes that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Naturally, a lot of pseudoscience is advanced to "explain" how scientists are completely wrong about the age of the universe, but it always falls apart upon close examination. Click here if you're interested in learning more about Young-Earth Creationism.

 

"Each according to their kind" creationism. This theory accepts that Genesis cannot be taken literally, but it makes a curious exception for the "each according to their kind" statement. Even if we disregard this obvious hypocrisy, this theory is easy to disprove since it is based on the notion that evolutionary speciation is impossible. Since evolutionary speciation has already been observed in nature, this theory is just as worthless as Biblical "young Earth" creationism.

 

The "intelligent designer" theory. This is the most contemptible of all creation theories because it lacks the honesty and integrity to openly declare its religious basis. Its proponents know, and we know that the "intelligent designer" is just a "nudge nudge, wink wink" way of saying "God", obviously in an effort to bypass constitutional prohibitions against using public schools to promote one religion over others. This is creationist fallback position #1: keep the same theory, but try to call it "science" by not explicitly mentioning God. They expect us to forget that all proponents of "intelligent design" just happen to be Christian, or that none of them can explain what mechanisms this "designer" might have used, or more importantly, why this "designer" would have performed this design process over billions of years, in a linear progression precisely matching the predictions of evolution theory.

 

Vague creationism. This is the creationist fallback position #2. When they realize that the specifics of creation theory are completely indefensible from a scientific standpoint, they soften the argument to a vague statement like "at some point in the process, there must have been some outside intervention." They often state this "theory" with the triumphant declaration that it can't be disproven. The problem is that it is so vague that it doesn't qualify as a theory. It doesn't even attempt to explain what sort of intervention occurred, or when, or how. It can't be disproven because it says nothing of substance.

 

Creationists also fail to explain the mechanism. If every species arose from the dust in its current form, and God made this happen, then how did he do it? Did he seize the necessary elements and make them bond, molecule by molecule, cell by cell, until a complete life form existed? Did he repeat this process for every single animal and plant? How long did this process take, per creature? Which organs were created first? How did each creature survive, since the organs cannot function outside of the environment of a complete organism? How did he manipulate all of this matter? Electromagnetic fields? Intense localized space-time distortions? Machinery which he built and then destroyed? Exotic chemical reactions which have now become impossible?

 

And finally, creationists violate a fundamental aspect of the scientific method; they fail to assume the existence of a mechanism (this relates to the previous problem). Every schoolchild learns the "Coles Notes" version of the scientific method (observe, analyze, hypothesize, experiment, etc.), but many of them don't realize that this method is designed to find the underlying mechanism for any given phenomenon. It inherently assumes that the mechanism exists, and this basic assumption is common to all scientific theories because it follows from the conclusion (based on observation) that the universe is not random. It appears to follow a set of rules, and this means that those rules are out there, waiting for us to figure them out. Creationists are fond of stating that evolution is based on the "humanist assumption" that natural mechanisms exist to explain everything, but they ignore the fact that this "humanist assumption" is part and parcel of all scientific theories. Are they going to throw the theory of gravity or plate tectonics out the window because it's based on a "humanist assumption"? If we were to accept "Creation Theory", we would be accepting the only theory in all of science which assumes that the universe does not follow rules (despite the lack of evidence for such arbitrary behaviour), and that its events are subject to the random whims of a supernatural deity.

 

Creationists want their "theory" to be taken, and examined, as if it were like any other scientific theory. But it fails to qualify as a theory. The numerous variants are either unworkable or hopelessly vague, with no attempt whatsoever to explain the mechanisms involved. A legitimate scientific theory proposes equations, rules, and mechanisms to explain observed phenomena. Creation theory does none of this! Where is the mechanism? Where is the explanation of how God created living beings in their current form? What chemical reactions, or physical forces did he use, and in what configuration? How long did it take to create each being? How were the creatures kept alive during the process? In what precise order were they made, since some species (such as parasites) require living hosts?

 

These are questions which creationists have never asked themselves. Their instinctive response to all of these questions is that God doesn't have to obey any of the laws of physics (or biology, or chemistry, or logic ...). But if God doesn't have to obey any of the laws of physics, and he therefore created the Earth's life in a process that expressly violated the laws of physics, then creationists are essentially saying in order for their theory to work, the laws of physics must be ignored! How can they expect anyone to take this seriously, as a "scientific theory?"

 

As soon as you attempt to subject Creation theory to the most cursory evaluation "as a scientific theory", it is quite obvious that it breaks down completely. It begins with the central postulate that the laws of physics must be ignored, in favour of what is essentially magic! Creationists have become accustomed to the luxury of not being placed under scientific scrutiny. They attribute this scientific apathy to dogma and of course, the vast global cover-up. But they should be careful what they wish for, because if you actually do examine Creation theory as a "scientific theory", it looks even worse than it did before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Excellent post vargo! I think you should save this post and use it on the next dumbo who wants to argue creation vs. evolution. A very nice piece!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chided Troy once that since humans are no longer pefect, cause of sin, how does he think he can offer a "perfect" proof for god?
:lmao:

 

That is such a good point. I can't believe I didn't think of that myself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I chided Troy once that since humans are no longer pefect, cause of sin, how does he think he can offer a "perfect" proof for god?

 

I've had another version of that view about the bible. Why is God only relevent by reading something about God in a handed down manuscript for and through us humans as to read and to speak for God? If using the worse reliable means of representing something that is to represent us to something perfect for which comes by the imperfect means? I was trying to get at this with a Thread I made a couple months back about (?) 'Why Would God Use Inscriptions' or something like that. (Not in the mode to search while I'm replying this right now.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had another version of that view about the bible.  Why is God only relevent by reading something about God in a handed down manuscript for and through us humans as to read and to speak for God?  If using the worse reliable means of representing something that is to represent us to something perfect for which comes by the imperfect means?  I was trying to get at this with a Thread I made a couple months back about (?) 'Why Would God Use Inscriptions'  or something like that.  (Not in the mode to search while I'm replying this right now.)

Not only that, why not just direct revelation. No, need to compose and fight over doctrines like that of the trinity, no need for an establishment which tells you how to read or believe the bible, no need for apologetics, troy - nothing.

 

Just you and God. I mean, heck, since we are so imperfect, this would be the perfect recourse for God - a new channel to circumvent sin. Would not violate freewill, we could still make choices.

 

But of course, religious spell it away, once again, because we are sinful we don't hear god "right" using our voice in our heads because of that sin. LOL.

 

Both void all of that nonesence to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lmao:

 

That is such a good point.  I can't believe I didn't think of that myself!

Multiples the legitimacy of his burden of proof, don't you think? :scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:sigh: I got lured over here from rants in hopes of something new. Dang I'm just as gullible as ever.

 

:Doh: Why hasn't evolution made things perfect? :Doh:

 

Pardon me, I didn't read the tread, if these questions have been asked.

 

Why hasn't an "eternally" perfect all powereful God made things perfect?

 

What definition of perfect is being used?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a more fundemental question, chef: Why was't the search function used?

 

Haven't we seen this exact "proof" used before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aw, this new Christian is boring. Troy and his followers are just delusional morons. I was hoping for another werewolf...

 

We got a werewolf? Wow. Do they really kick their legs when you scratch their tummies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I enjoyed this, P -- despite the gnawing sensation of knowing hundreds of the 'faithful' here would be lining up to hurl invectives. Take it all in stride my good man. Where did you find this? Or is it your own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicole,

 

This "proof" was apparently developed by a guy named Terry Brooks, I believe. He came here under the name of "Troy" but has since then come up under other names posing as new Theists, as well as masquerading as a questioner to probe us for questions on what we thought of his sorry self.

 

Honestly, his "Four-Step Perfect Proof" is both unintelligible and asinine. I'm a student of both science as well as philosophy, and I can't make our what he means exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a visitor once who calls himself Werewolf Tobias or something like that, and he thinks he is really a real werewolf who fights for god or some such nonsense.  Some of the funniest stuff I've read.  LOL!

 

I hope you people know what furries are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I enjoyed this, P -- despite the gnawing sensation of knowing hundreds of the 'faithful' here would be lining up to hurl invectives. Take it all in stride my good man. Where did you find this? Or is it your own?

A-ha! Suspicions confirmed. Nicole is a friend of Parture. Invited by him and enlisted to probe us for entertainment value.

 

*sigh. You disappoint me Nicole. I had hopes that yours was a serious attempt to communicate your beliefs. Instead this is some sort of "forum board wars" you and your friend have concocted. For shame. Such a sterling example of "Christian" behavior.

 

Please do us all a favor and take your "Christian love" elsewhere. :bukkake:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This "proof" was apparently developed by a guy named Terry Brooks, I believe.

 

Must be a fan of the author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I enjoyed this, P -- despite the gnawing sensation of knowing hundreds of the 'faithful' here would be lining up to hurl invectives.

 

Would be? Did you not already see the fulfillment of your prophecy before making your post? That simple slip reveals your nature as a participant in this latest fundy attack on ex-C. You buddy troy drops a nonsensical and mostly unintelligble 'perfect proof' turd bomb, then runs and hides and enlists you (who could very well be him in disguise again).

 

You do realize that deception is a sin don't you? Rather than waiting for your invisible friend to convict you for your transgression, I'd like to speed up the process.

 

Fuck off and die, and then go to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...knowing hundreds of the 'faithful' here...

Nicole.... "faithful" of what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then runs and hides and enlists you (who could very well be him in disguise again

 

Not bloody likely. Troy is illiterate. Nicky is a bit lopsided from the chip on her shoulder, but she is able to put two thoughts together and probably chew gum at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicole.... "faithful" of what?

 

Oh that. That's sarcasm. Congratulations picking up on it ... everyone else was checking out their shadows. Really now, do any of you boys get out very much? Or have you all become imprisoned ... http://pages.infinit.net/drnayman/agorapho.htm

wallowing in fear at the prospect the original poster has enlisted my 'services' to taunt and tease. Rest assured, my merry little gloomy Gus's, we're unrelated. n

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that. That's sarcasm. Congratulations picking up on it ... everyone else was checking out their shadows. Really now, do any of you boys get out very much? Or have you all become imprisoned ... http://pages.infinit.net/drnayman/agorapho.htm

wallowing in fear at the prospect the original poster has enlisted my 'services' to taunt and tease. Rest assured, my merry little gloomy Gus's, we're unrelated. n

Sure thing.

 

Nicole, lurk much here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.