Ex-Hawaii official denounces 'ludicrous' birther claims.

nonsense. many people have been through this argument with you. you just make shit up as you go to make it fit what you believe. you somehow have an ability in your mind to make what a scientist says mean exactly the opposite of what he actually said.

that works ok in a sunday school class but not so good in a public forum.

 

if feelings are the only criteria used as evidence how do you differentiate between the nonsense and something that may be real. there are thousands of crackpot healers all over the world. you can always find someone who feels it worked for them. does that legitimise any idea someone may come up with?

"If “faith” is a prerequisite in a belief in order to see the truth of the belief, being if there were evidence there would be no need for “faith” in any particular belief.
All supernatural beliefs require “faith” in its truth, being there is no evidence proving any particular belief.
So it must be the “faith” itself that dictates what is true.
Therefore every one of the worlds religions are true, being they all rely on the “faith” of the believer to see its truth."

 

this is not sunday school and its not for ostriches of an atheist belief either.... its for people who google and start reading about the incredible fine tunings in our universe. There are thousands of quotes out there now from top scientists... but this one is a good one.



"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. Unlike Martin Rees, he does not enjoy wooden-panelled rooms in his day job, but inhabits an office at the top of a concrete high-rise, the windows of which hang as if on the edge of the universe. He sums up the multiverse predicament: “Everyone has their own reason why they’re keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that can’t be explained. It seems clear that there is fine tuning, and you either need a tuner, who chooses the constants so that we arise, or you need a multiverse, and then we have to be in one of the universes where the constants are right for life.”

But which comes first, tuner or tuned? Who or what is leading the dance? Isn’t conjuring up a multiverse to explain already outlandish fine-tuning tantamount to leaping out of the physical frying pan and into the metaphysical fire?

Unsurprisingly, the multiverse proposal has provoked ideological opposition. In 2005, the New York Times published an opinion piece by a Roman Catholic cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, in which he called it “an abdication of human intelligence.” That comment led to a slew of letters lambasting the claim that the multiverse is a hypothesis designed to avoid “the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science.” But even if you don’t go along with the prince of the church on that, he had another point which does resonate with many physicists, regardless of their belief. The idea that the multiverse solves the fine-tuning of the universe by effectively declaring that everything is possible is in itself not a scientific explanation at all: if you allow yourself to hypothesize any number of worlds, you can account for anything but say very little about how or why.

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=137"

 

look jem, we have been through this before with susskind. stu and i and others showed over and over you were lying about what he actually said. even then i am sure you can find a couple of people who might actually be scientists that even agree with you. after all only about 98% of scientists discount id. that still leaves 2% for you to quote mine. in any case save it for sunday school.

Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
[St. Augustine],

 

that is totally and complete bullshit... no one has ever shown I was lying about quotes from scientists and fine tunings. In fact I just destoryed stu on abiogensis... a very similar subject.

I quote people... and I quote them accurately its you and stu who try to spin your bullshit.

If you wish we can do it again. I will provide quotes and you will link to an out of context part of a video. I then transcribed the whole video and showed you and stu were full of shit.

But instead of lying... why not explain why Bernard Carr is wrong and you are correct.

That is science ...
fine tunings which are evidence of a tuner or a multiverse..
face the issue and agree with Carr or explain why he is wreong. ... don't bullshit about other issues.

Explain it or keep up with the ostriches.

 

Despite your dictatorial proclamations and how ever much you wish it weren't so, there can't be faith where there is non.

And I don't ridicule the concept of God. You manage that well enough by yourself with the ridiculous things you say.

So it is confirmed. Faith in fact must by definition and in all necessity not allow doubt, without which enquiry is stifled.
History being full of devastating examples.

You're sorry? ok apology accepted.

 

Of course it was shown you were lying.

You do not quote accurately. You quote selectively, misleadingly, with untruthfulness and purposefully to deceive. Then you don't face the responses, but rather post again and again, repeating the same dishonesty. and in doing so, claim to have destroyed all refutation, as if that was proving anything but your mendaciousness.

In the case of Bernard Carr, what you quote him as saying is not science.
That either or idea is your own fantasy. Even if there were any tuning, whatever that is supposed to mean, there is nothing in science to suggest it should be anything other than completely natural occurrences as they are observed throughout the universe. Inferences and ideas of God tuners is merely in your imagination and nothing whatsoever to do with science.

You have explanations that you asked for so what are you going to do next Answer it directly, or sink further into another epic fail of repeat deceit?

 

Someone proclaims their faith in God.

Your response? "I have faith there is no God." For certainly you have no knowledge of non God...only an abiding faith that there is no God. You are absent of faith in God by choice and consent, which would require doubting the existence of God. So you have faith in non God, and doubt in God simultaneously.

"Faith in fact must by definition and in all necessity not allow doubt."

False of course.

Faith allows doubt, just as courage allows fear. Both exist, except the mind chooses to act on one and not act on the other.

"You're sorry? ok apology accepted."

Wrong again. No apology for you being the flip side of the same coin...just sorry (as in feeling sad for your pathetic condition but not feeling responsible for your pathetic condition) that you perpetually deny the obvious.

 

Your response? "I have faith there is no God."

You can keep putting words in my mouth as much as you want, but it won't change the fact one iota that your absurdly ridiculous assertion 'no faith is faith' is exactly just that. Absurdly ridiculous.


Faith allows doubt, just as courage allows fear. Both exist, except the mind chooses to act on one and not act on the other.

Rubbish.
Courage is only courage when it overcomes fear. Faith can only be faith when it overcomes doubt.

Faith is the antithesis of doubt and is the refusenik to uncertainty by necessity. Otherwise it's obviously not faith, but some mish-mash of confusion which goes a long way to explain what your posts are all about.

Yes you are wrong, again. But no surprise there.

 

Your response? "I have faith there is no God."

You can keep putting words in my mouth as much as you want, but it won't change the fact one iota that your absurdly ridiculous assertion 'no faith is faith' is exactly just that. Absurdly ridiculous.

The absurdity is when you compare your lack of beliefs to a turnip.

You have the capacity to believe in God. You make a decision not to believe in God. You therefore, since you don't have knowledge of God not actually existing, you hold a belief, practice a faith.

What is really wacky about your position is you take a position that God must necessarily conform to your criteria of a proof, which means you are practicing a belief that God must necessarily conform to your criteria of proof for God to exist, a logically fallacy of assuming the antecedent, so that you can then claim God doesn't exist because God doesn't your criteria for a proof.

Absurd circular logic, of course. But to maintain your faith in God, that's how it works.

God, by definition is beyond the human senses...as senses are limited instruments.

Silly that you deny your obvious faith in God...or worse, compare yourself to a turnip.




Faith allows doubt, just as courage allows fear. Both exist, except the mind chooses to act on one and not act on the other.

Rubbish.
Courage is only courage when it overcomes fear. Faith can only be faith when it overcomes doubt.

Faith is the antithesis of doubt and is the refusenik to uncertainty by necessity. Otherwise it's obviously not faith, but some mish-mash of confusion which goes a long way to explain what your posts are all about.

Yes you are wrong, again. But no surprise there.

Courageous people generally admit to feeling fear...but acting against it.

Can an equation hold both a negative number and a positive number in the equation?

Of course. So opposites can coexist, this happens all the time. Human beings have love/hate relationships all the time.

Man, you are being a real dim bulb in your efforts to defend your own faith...

So sorry that your innocent faith as a child was crushed so badly that you have to resort to such self delusions. Faith and doubt can and do exist simultaneously.

Not until faith is 100% does doubt vanish from the mind of a person, and I doubt you will find anyone, either a theist or atheist, who claims they are 100% certain on something that they can't prove. Some doubt is always there, just like fear is always there for most people...it is the mental decision that is made on which to act upon that determines the actions. So people with doubt, decide to act in faith. People in fear, decide to act courageously. The actions don't remove the doubt or fear, they simply become a physical/or mental choice of which to act upon.

Degrees of faith vary.

Up to that time of 100% faith, it might be 10% faith, 90% doubt. 50% faith, 50% doubt, 90% faith, 10% doubt, etc.

Just like we have sunlight, and darkness from shadows on the same pavement. We experience opposite values in our mind frequently.

Your argument is like a bumbling slobbering stumbling drunk, as it is the employment of an all or nothing fallacy, a fallacy of assuming the antecedent...that is logically false, and goes against the experience of human beings to be able to hold contradictory feelings or ideas at the same time...