|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 16, 2013 10:01:05 GMT 10
Yes. It's called the "Law of Causality" If consciousness exists in the Universe, and we are a finite effect--then a greater consciousness (ie: God), must be a necessary Cause. No, it doesn't. Double bollocks. That's just fantasy. Yep, a fantastic irrefutable Law of Physics. --You do know physics is a science, right?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 16, 2013 10:01:56 GMT 10
None of these things can be proven physically, nor are they self-evident. Triple bollocks! Then by all means, step up to the challenge and prove them--or concede the argument.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 16, 2013 10:04:56 GMT 10
So if you think that "Roman Catholic" is a good thing not to be, then thank your God that you were brought up in civilised Canada. I mean the "civilised" bit sincerely. From the few weeks I spent in Canada 10 years ago (can it really be that long ago - already?) I got the impression that it was a very civilised place while we're still a bit wild & woolly. We'll rise to the challenge. There is a lot of land to cover up here, after all.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 16, 2013 11:45:14 GMT 10
Physics is funny. "Take this immovable object..." - No such thing as an immovable object. "The weightlifter struggles but fails to lift a 500 Kg weight." His muscles bulge, his eyes nearly pop out, he sweats, he strains ... but according to Physics ... no work is done. ...Is there a point to be had, here?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Aug 16, 2013 16:56:21 GMT 10
If you have to ask, you've missed it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 17, 2013 2:45:06 GMT 10
The fault would be on the weightlifter, not physics.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Aug 17, 2013 7:28:13 GMT 10
There is no fault on the weightlifter.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 17, 2013 23:25:19 GMT 10
Then every scientific statement must stay tentative, forever. -correct? That means atheistic position is irrational, since the claim 'there is no God' can never be verified by their own evidential criteria.
Ergo, by your own admission: Agnosticism is more rational than atheism. And since theism is already a faith-based worldview, it is not subject to the same criteria. SWISH! GOAL!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Aug 18, 2013 7:28:27 GMT 10
You clearly failed maths as whenever you try to put two and two together, you come up with Apple Juice.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 18, 2013 9:51:32 GMT 10
Four apple juices, actually. Unlike you, I don't need proof of an object's existence to contemplate complex concepts. (Heh, excuse the heavy use of unintentional alliteration there. -I'm still wiping the spit off my screen.)
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Aug 18, 2013 18:42:52 GMT 10
Four apple juices, actually. Unlike you, I don't need proof of an object's existence to contemplate complex concepts. (Heh, excuse the heavy use of unintentional alliteration there. -I'm still wiping the spit off my screen.) You and complex concepts haven't met.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 19, 2013 0:09:24 GMT 10
Four apple juices, actually. Unlike you, I don't need proof of an object's existence to contemplate complex concepts. (Heh, excuse the heavy use of unintentional alliteration there. -I'm still wiping the spit off my screen.) You and complex concepts haven't met. Your version of complex concepts, yes. But what you'd call a 'complex concept', most rational people would call 'smoke and mirrors.'
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Aug 19, 2013 13:50:30 GMT 10
Crikey! The truly frightening fact about that statement is that you actually believe it.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Aug 20, 2013 10:50:20 GMT 10
What's even more frightening...? It happens to be true, and you don't realize it.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Aug 30, 2013 18:51:12 GMT 10
Still avoiding this, Skippy? Are you channelling your inner Tony Abbott? SKIPPY !
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 3, 2013 2:42:14 GMT 10
Still avoiding this, Skippy? Are you channelling your inner Tony Abbott? SKIPPY ! I'm not exactly sure what you expect from Skippy. You act as if you've invalidated this article, but all I've seen is an ignorant dismissal.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 3, 2013 2:46:10 GMT 10
Pastors aren't infallible, and I am entitled to disagree with him. But ever since 1870 the Catholics have claimed that the Pope is infallible on the basis of Matthew 16:18 - the "Tu es Petrus" bit. And also on the basis of Mark 3:16, 9:2, Luke 24:34 and 1 Corinthians 15:5. I'd argue there was no Pope, when those verses were penned.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Sept 3, 2013 7:25:33 GMT 10
I'm not exactly sure what you expect from Skippy. You act as if you've invalidated this article, but all I've seen is an ignorant dismissal. Oh dear. Skippy has this habit of telling others that they run away from answering topics only to do exactly the same himself on countless occasions. I'm just helping him to choose his kettle colour.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Sept 5, 2013 8:26:16 GMT 10
Well before you go ahead and make a bigger ass of yourself, you ought to know he originally got the article from me, when I posted it on FB. So, your issue is with me... Now what?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 10, 2014 23:04:47 GMT 10
You posted it? How did I miss that?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 11, 2014 6:14:19 GMT 10
You miss a lot of things.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 11, 2014 13:36:14 GMT 10
So you stand by the opener?
And I thought only Skippy was thaaaaaaaat stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 13, 2014 3:16:39 GMT 10
I haven't seen any evidence pointing to the contrary. You dismiss the article just because it comes from a religious source, but that doesn't damage it's validity.
And calling Skippy stupid, doesn't make you smart.
There are no smart people or stupid people, just people being smart or being stupid. Being smart means thinking things through - trying to find the real answer, not the first answer. Being stupid means avoiding thinking by jumping to conclusions. Jumping to a conclusion is like quitting a game : you lose by default.
If you decide someone is stupid, it means you’re not thinking, which is not being smart. So stop being stupid!
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Mar 13, 2014 6:22:50 GMT 10
I can only go by the evidence put before me, therefore:
a) that study is clearly incorrect b) only someone stupid would agree with it
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 13, 2014 6:48:56 GMT 10
I can only go by the evidence put before me Untrue. You can do your own research, instead of waiting for others to spoon feed you. False. Just because you reject it, doesn't make it incorrect. No, only someone stupid would be this dismissive about it.
|
|