Author Topic: Ken Ham  (Read 4029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2727
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #174 on: February 22, 2014, 05:36:47 AM »
Here's a truth table that you can cut and paste, in response to skep.

Solipsist world -> God loses. (God mentions nothing about solipsism in the Bible, and instead mentions that he created the world 6000 years before I was conscious. Therefore God is a lying twit.)
Objective world -> God loses. (Since we can trust objective reality, we know that there was no flood, so God is a lying twit.)

Unless skep can find a 3rd option to jerk us around, we just need to C&P this one.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Keko-in-the-box

  • Freshman
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • Darwins +2/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #175 on: February 22, 2014, 06:27:20 AM »

Well, there is no ultimate purpose of life for an atheist. It is a depressing to have. At least we theists have hope that something better will happen for us when we die. Atheism is just depressing and hopeless. I can't understand why anyone would want to believe in atheism over theism.

Wouldn't you rather have hope instead of darkness?

Imagine someone's child dies. What seems more heartfelt to say?

A. Your child is in Heaven with the Lord singing with the angels.
B. Your child's dead. You're never gonna seen him/her again.

Do you claim then, that your religion is based on what's comfortable rather than what is necessarily true?

I don't really understand how you can be comfortable with a life which is based upon a 'hope' that your version of beliefs is the correct one. You have no real way of knowing whether you have been following the correct religion. Wouldn't it be better to make life meaningful by living it to the fullest, knowing you won't have another one to fall back on? If you're following your religion because you're petrified (as many theists are) of the wrath of god if you did not follow it, then isn't it an equally terrifying thought to wonder whether you will still end up in hell or not revived for all eternity if you chose the wrong one?

How do you know your religion is the correct one to follow? I'm sure you must be certain it was the correct one to follow, but I'm just wondering if you can justify why it is the right one over all the other religions on Earth today.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1445
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #176 on: February 22, 2014, 10:44:56 AM »

No, I am saying that things do exist outside of our minds, but God's mind is always perceiving them. Materialists can not account for the external world without invoking God. They just ASSUME it's there. The only way to account for the external world is to posit the eternal and infinite mind which is always perceiving.

Using ONLY your mind to say that things exist OUTSIDE the mind is a preposterous notion.

So you disagree with Berkeley now?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1445
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #177 on: February 22, 2014, 10:54:44 AM »

No. Once again, it is not an argument from incredulity. It is an argument based on empiricism. All we know for sure is that we can only describe things by using our minds. To say that there is an external world outside of our minds is an extra assumption that is not needed, which gets shaved away by Theist Ockham's Razor.

Berkely got rid of this assumption (because it's not based on empiricism) and ended up simultaneously proving God and explaining reality.

That is why the philosophy of objectivism (that reality exits independently of minds) is bankrupt. It can not be proven empirically and thus is just a belief. It is impossible to prove an independent reality outside of our minds because nobody has ever been outside of their minds to see it.

I just proved all this is wrong in 166. Which part of it do you not understand?

You need to consider what is causing you to be so confused and to contradict yourself so much.

Demons.



« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 11:13:21 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +893/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #178 on: February 22, 2014, 04:46:30 PM »
Okay, skep it's time to put up or shut up: does reality exist or not? :angel:
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6468
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #179 on: February 22, 2014, 04:56:43 PM »
Welcome Keko (the one in the box).  ;D
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1445
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #180 on: February 22, 2014, 06:33:23 PM »

Well, there is no ultimate purpose of life for an atheist. It is a depressing to have. At least we theists have hope that something better will happen for us when we die. Atheism is just depressing and hopeless. I can't understand why anyone would want to believe in atheism over theism.

Wouldn't you rather have hope instead of darkness?

Imagine someone's child dies. What seems more heartfelt to say?

A. Your child is in Heaven with the Lord singing with the angels.
B. Your child's dead. You're never gonna seen him/her again.

Do you claim then, that your religion is based on what's comfortable rather than what is necessarily true?

I don't really understand how you can be comfortable with a life which is based upon a 'hope' that your version of beliefs is the correct one. You have no real way of knowing whether you have been following the correct religion. Wouldn't it be better to make life meaningful by living it to the fullest, knowing you won't have another one to fall back on? If you're following your religion because you're petrified (as many theists are) of the wrath of god if you did not follow it, then isn't it an equally terrifying thought to wonder whether you will still end up in hell or not revived for all eternity if you chose the wrong one?

How do you know your religion is the correct one to follow? I'm sure you must be certain it was the correct one to follow, but I'm just wondering if you can justify why it is the right one over all the other religions on Earth today.

He answered this at 48 where he admitted that religion is just a guess based on emotional preference.

At the moment he is ignoring my proof that the universe is an objective reality. He was basing his ideas on an outdated philosopher, Berkeley, who "leaned too much on his own understanding" instead of asking nature.

The Wikipedia page about Berkeley which he has been using for examples says "Berkeley believed that God is not the distant engineer of Isaac Newton or Newtonian machinery that in the fullness of time led to the growth of a tree in the university quadrangle. Rather, the perception of the tree is an idea that God's mind has produced in the mind, and the tree continues to exist in the quadrangle when "nobody" is there, simply because God is an infinite mind that perceives all."

So the universe is a projection of God's mind which is then perceived by other minds. Is this the way you follow it, Shep?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1445
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Ken Ham
« Reply #181 on: February 22, 2014, 07:49:03 PM »

No, I am saying that things do exist outside of our minds, but God's mind is always perceiving them. Materialists can not account for the external world without invoking God. They just ASSUME it's there. The only way to account for the external world is to posit the eternal and infinite mind which is always perceiving.

Using ONLY your mind to say that things exist OUTSIDE the mind is a preposterous notion.

I see you what you mean here. You were talking about immaterial projections of god existing outside of the mind.

I have already proved that science forces scientists to accept a material reality outside the mind. Here I will show you what happens using modern knowledge if you assume that the external reality is the mind of a god.

When Berkeley was writing modern science was in its early days. This is what Berkeley thought ( from Wikipedia ) " the order and purposefulness of the whole of our experience of the world and especially of nature overwhelms us into believing in the existence of an extremely powerful and intelligent spirit that causes that order. "

You see that what convinces Berkeley that a god exists and controls or projects the universe is the order in the universe. At that time scientists thought the universe was well ordered and worked like a clock. In the early twentieth century Einstein said "god does not play dice" when he was shocked by new discoveries that the universe has no fundamental order. We now know that if the universe was a game of dice in a god's mind, the god would not know the numbers on the dice, how many dice he had, or even if he had thrown them. If the universe was the mind of a god he would not know his own mind or be able to control it. In other words he would be insane. The universe is not the clockwork ordered structure which Berkeley and scientists at that time believed it was. Berkeley is a classic case of someone "leaning too much on their own understanding".
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V