Out of sheer curiosity, could you provide us with a brief background on yourself? you ARE the perfect example of liberal-elitist-idiocy. I've gathered a collection of your posts, in the event that I need to induce vomiting.
What else would you expect from one who accused someone of treason without even knowing what it meant and who thinks he can draw a conclusion about the origin of the universe from a flawed analogy about a fictional teapot that was written by an atheist with an agenda?
Lol Thank you Socrates. "Two things that are equally implausible are equally plausible." Now you're just making a total fool of yourself. Those "two things" are obviously and more to the point , logically, not equally implausible. You don't have a relationship expression in the first place. I already mentioned why not. You didn't deal with it. Too busy name calling. Would you care to have a stab at why not? Here's the clue. Russell's teapot has far more in plausibility going for it than just a polysemous - God or Creator - word. You are not comparing equally implausible things; required to form plausibility relations. But you're on the wrong track anyway. Bertrand Russell made the teapot analogy to refute irrational burden of proof claims made by many theists. Cut & pasting logic lessons is not going to help your illogical statements any. Quite the opposite. Go back to school. May I suggest you take an anger management class while there.
So tell me, why then if that is the case, would you not regard your own preceeding statement the same way ?... Quote from DoneNDone: "... man was never able to read the mind of god accurately" "that presupposes man has an accurate definition of god, doesn't it? " Defining god as unfathomable, is no less of a presupposition. It is only ever the mind of man reading what is or isn't the mind of god.
ROTFLMAO!!!! You never miss an opportunity to show just how STUpid you are. Again you miss the point. I used YOUR STUpid "relationship expression" which I objected to and you dismissed. So BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE SAID they're equally implausible. You made the argument that the celestial teapot and the existence of God are equally unfalsifiable and therefore equally implausible here: A Celestial Teapot or a Celestial God? Of course both are equally implausible. Simply because a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2951231#post2951231 I objected and said you really don't KNOW that one is "just as much of an unfalsifiable claim" as the other. Nor would they necessarily be "equally implausible" if they were. But you dismissed that. Based on your dismissal, the case "no celsetial God" (which is also unfalsifiable) can be substituted for "a celestial teapot" in your own "relationship expression," which means you concede that God is just as plausible as no God as I showed here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2953564#post2953564 Oh please... whenever there's a discussion about the existence of God, atheists drag out the old teapot analogy because it suggests that belief in God is epistemically on par with believing in a celestial teapot because nobody can disprove either case. You did this yourself so not only are you STUpid, you're also disingenuous.
the troll makes a statement about the universe appearing from nothing. I asked him to explain it --- and then he writes this bullshit. By the way... Hawking wrote this on the first page... "The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. " He goes on to explain that the latest work in in cosmology explains it away by speculating there could be trillions and trillions of alternate universes. So - I asked you to explain if you believe in alternate Stus in those theoretical alternate universes. You pussied out.
"Bernard Carr is an astronomer at Queen Mary University, London. ... Everyone has their own reason why theyâre keen on the multiverse. But what it comes down to is that there are these physical constants that canât 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..." Got that stu.... "It seems clear that there is fine tuning." or you need a multiverse. That is the message Stu... not Susskind, not Hawking, not Carr none of these guys is saying they know there is no fine tuning. And not one is saying they have proof of a multiverse. You are stuck in some atheist bullshitter loop.
Can you not see the parallel arguments here? Nobody can prove there are multiple universes. Nobody can prove there is a god. You accuse stu of being stuck in an atheist bullshitter loop, but you yourself are stuck in a god bullshitter loop. Neither side can prove definitively one way or the other. We must simply look at the facts and determine which is MOST LIKELY (not definitively). Given the current facts available, I believe that the probability there is a god is less than the probability that there isn't. If this makes me an atheist then so be it. My beef is that I believe there is enough evidence AGAINST god (again, not definitive, but enough to skew the probabilities) that I shouldn't have to have god and religion shoved down my throat by politicians, people, etc. , shouldn't have to pay my full taxes while organized religion gets tax breaks, etc. etc.
This is a pretty long thread. Cut to the chase. Its all about Power with religion. Use the book to deny any law it doesn't agree with and it puts them in the position to dictate which is what their subversive intentions are in the first place. They use that disagreement to feign indignation then proceed to take over. Nothing to do with Freedom or general good will.