Author Topic: what is the premise of your main argument here...?  (Read 823 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« on: August 07, 2014, 08:22:56 AM »
alright, alright, alright (copyright matthew mcconaughey) let's pull it all in... let's bring it on back... cake lady, xyzzy, screwtape, foxy, OAA, et al... what is the premise of your main argument here on 'why won't god replace lost limbs'...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12198
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2014, 08:59:46 AM »
Here is what the main site says:
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/summary.htm

Quote
If we pray for anything that is impossible -- for example, regenerating an amputated limb or moving Mt. Everest to Newark, NJ -- it never happens.

That is just the executive summary.  It goes into further detail in other chapters.

My boiler plate explanation is thus:

There is a certian type of xian who attempts to justify his or her god beliefs by claiming that people are miraculously healed of various afflictions by divine intervention.  The afflictions may include cancer, diabetes, coma, heart conditions, tooth decay, halitosis, spastic colon, etc.  We frequently hear anecdotes about how some church group prayed for some guy and the next day he was completely healed. 

But there are several problems with this kind of reasoning.  First, data shows many of these types of afflictions sometimes "clear up" without any kind of prayers.  It seems to be a natural response or a misdiagnosis.  Second, people of all religions make the same claims.  And last, there is a whole class of ailments that are never, ever cured by prayer or naturally. 

People never regrow lost limbs.  Lost eyes never regrow in the empty sockets.  Retarded people never gain normal mental capacity. Alzheimers and Dementia sufferers never recover.  Old people never rejuvenate. 

This has clear implications about a god that supposedly heals people.  It leaves you only a few conclusions about such a god.


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +263/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2014, 09:00:22 AM »
Short answer:  Most "healings" seem to involve ambiguity.  Cancer may have been misdiagnosed and can go into remission, and the patients don't always credit the work of the Oncologists and Radiologists who worked on their behalf.  The fellowship of a congregation plus the placebo effect may cause depression to lift, albeit not necessarily for life.  Headaches usually go away on their own.

However, there is nothing ambiguous about a healed amputation.  Bones, skin, muscle, nerves and blood vessels would have to regenerate and recover function, integrating with systems more proximally in the body.  There are no credible accounts of this ever happening; hence, we question the existence of a god that does miracle healings, because the one thing that would be an unambiguous miracle never happens.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2014, 09:40:10 AM »
yes, and i've never seen anyone claw their way out of the grave either... so your conclusions are that this god doesn't exist... no?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2014, 09:42:02 AM »
alright, alright, alright (copyright matthew mcconaughey) let's pull it all in... let's bring it on back... cake lady, xyzzy, screwtape, foxy, OAA, et al... what is the premise of your main argument here on 'why won't god replace lost limbs'...?

Simple - because there is no evidence or reason to believe there is a god that exists who is capable of replacing lost limbs.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2014, 09:58:46 AM »
"There is not a single piece of empirical evidence showing that God is real. There is a mountain of evidence showing that God is imaginary. God falls into the same category as Leprechauns. God is a completely imaginary, mythological being that springs from human imagination."

this quote above, taken from the "wwgha website" i think would qualify as perhaps the main premise of the debate.  so i'll submit for consideration a question i've posted here before.  what if all there IS, is empirical evidence that god is real...?  let's face it, it appears the impossible happened, that we exist as a product of the impossible.  so don't we have to reconsider what IS possible in light of the fact that our ability TO consider, or imagine things is... well, impossible...?  yes, i know the whole "god of the gaps" thing... but really, science points to an event, that event happening immediately after t=0.  the event has no cause, "it" is presumably "outside" of time... so that makes "it" impossible.  come on now... you with me...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1228
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2014, 10:09:10 AM »
what if all there IS, is empirical evidence that god is real...?  let's face it, it appears the impossible happened, that we exist as a product of the impossible.  so don't we have to reconsider what IS possible in light of the fact that our ability TO consider, or imagine things is... well, impossible...?  yes, i know the whole "god of the gaps" thing... but really, science points to an event, that event happening immediately after t=0.  the event has no cause, "it" is presumably "outside" of time... so that makes "it" impossible.  come on now... you with me...?

You're conflating impossible with improbable. If something is impossible it doesn't happen. If something is improbable it can happen. In the case of our existence, even if the odds were stacked against us, it may have been improbable that we would come to exist but our existence it's self proves one thing and one thing only; it is possible.
Are you with me?

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2014, 10:12:01 AM »
what if all there IS, is empirical evidence that god is real...?

If everything is evidence for god then "evidence" becomes a meaningless term as there is nothing to contrast against.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2014, 10:25:56 AM »
You're conflating impossible with improbable. If something is impossible it doesn't happen. If something is improbable it can happen. In the case of our existence, even if the odds were stacked against us, it may have been improbable that we would come to exist but our existence it's self proves one thing and one thing only; it is possible.
Are you with me?

nope, i'm not conflating impossible with improbable.  i agree, if something is impossible it doesn't happen.  so how do you explain "it" happening.  again, science points to an "event".  but reality has "time".  so how can something happen outside of "time"... that would be impossible, would it not...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1410
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2014, 10:40:11 AM »
You're conflating impossible with improbable. If something is impossible it doesn't happen. If something is improbable it can happen. In the case of our existence, even if the odds were stacked against us, it may have been improbable that we would come to exist but our existence it's self proves one thing and one thing only; it is possible.
Are you with me?

nope, i'm not conflating impossible with improbable.  i agree, if something is impossible it doesn't happen.  so how do you explain "it" happening.  again, science points to an "event".  but reality has "time".  so how can something happen outside of "time"... that would be impossible, would it not...?
Yes you're conflating impossible with in improbable, in your first statement you ask " so how do you explain it happening"
You say about outside time (apart from this being a non-sequitur) this apples to your god too. How can a god exist outside of time.
Any how. We don't know what came before the event, we don't say. it just happened we just don't know. You're are putting impossible in, whereas we just don't know so cannot state it's impossible. I doubt you find any critical thinker that would.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1228
  • Darwins +89/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2014, 11:00:27 AM »
nope, i'm not conflating impossible with improbable.  i agree, if something is impossible it doesn't happen.  so how do you explain "it" happening.  again, science points to an "event".  but reality has "time".  so how can something happen outside of "time"... that would be impossible, would it not...?

Let me see if I get this, you're saying that existence is impossible. However with god in the mix it is possible?

If this is right you have just said that existence is improbable, i.e. with out a certain set of circumstances (in your case god) existence would not happen.
I agree with all of that except the bit about god.
You were right earlier when you said that this is about a god of the gaps

Online YRM_DM

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 326
  • Darwins +65/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2014, 11:09:21 AM »
It's a stand against the cases for faith and religion because those cases aren't based in reality or reason.

Religious Claims

Claim - God created the earth and mankind and has a plan for everything.
Counter - There's a mountain of evidence that the universe is a hostile place where evolution and natural selection only allow for life to fight it's way forward at great cost.

Claim - What about morality, how do we have objective morality apart from God who is good?
Counter - In the Old Testament, used by Judaism, Christianity and Islam, God orders and commits genocide, rape, and slavery, things we know to be objectively wrong.   A good god wouldn't order slavery and rape, then drown the earth in a manner similar to Hitler gassing the Jews.

Claim - Give your life over to Jesus and you'll see a real change.  God answers prayers and wants a personal relationship with us as is claimed repeatedly in the bible.
Counter - Most prayers go unanswered, or if they are answered, it's as a result of the other things you did besides praying.   When you look at severe, honest, desperate, impossible prayers that go unanswered, it makes it less likely that God was the reason the resume you sent out and interview you went on turned into a job.   When you ask Jesus for advice in prayer, you never hear anything that you didn't already know, or a voice that isn't your own.

Claim -  My religion is real because my "holy book" was inspired by God.  I know this because I know it and because it's written in the book itself.
Counter - Something that claims to be true can't support itself as being true or God-Inspired.  There has to be outside evidence.  The books should reflect reality in such a way as to be impossible to challenge.   The "truth" should be as visible as "the earth is round" and "a force we call gravity draws objects together" and "the speed of light is really fast".

Claim - But God acts in my life every day.  He talks to me and we have a personal relationship.  He really wants me to save you!
Counter - It should be easy then right?  Just have God tell you something about me that only I would know, and with enough specifics that he'll know I'll be convinced, and, I'll start down the path of exploring faith with you.  Sound good?

Claim - Oh... well, God can't be challenged or tested... sometimes he answers prayers with "yes" or "maybe" or "wait" or "no" and he allows bad things in your life for the greater good and that's why Christians don't see any statistical difference in any area that reflects that any prayers make any difference in any aspects of their lives... BUT GOD IS REAL!
Counter - In the Bible in multiple places, God is tested and allows himself to be tested.   God appears to all the prophets and Paul.  Jesus lets Thomas touch his wounds.   Elijah literally has a "test my god" challenge against Baal in the Old Testament.   God promises to answer prayer if Christians agree in prayer.   Surely there would be SOME statistical difference in SOME testable area if God was ACTING in the natural world.

Over and over, these claims are made in circular fashion, and never defeat the counters.

It is important to live our lives believing the most "true" way we can, so that we're able to empathize with others and do as much good and little damage as possible.   If you understand that other people's lives are ALL THEY HAVE and you don't know their circumstances, it's easier to show respect and value towards their time and life.

You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2014, 11:35:09 AM »
let's face it, it appears the impossible happened, that we exist as a product of the impossible.  so don't we have to reconsider what IS possible in light of the fact that our ability TO consider, or imagine things is... well, impossible...?  yes, i know the whole "god of the gaps" thing... but really, science points to an event, that event happening immediately after t=0.  the event has no cause, "it" is presumably "outside" of time... so that makes "it" impossible. come on now... you with me...?

That is poor reasoning. Immediately after t=0, time would exist. For the first three minutes, the universe was in a quantum state, from which causality developed slowly. T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state. After about three minutes, the universe was sufficiently stable that most of the something from nothing appeared. The Big Bang was not a single instantaneous event but a cumulative series of developments.

The question is where did the energy come from to move the universe away from close to t=0? That is not exactly something which is impossible to explain. We don't lack explanations. We have too many. Transfer of energy in a multiverse would do it. A self creating quantum universe could also do it. You might ask whether a god could do it. The answer is no, a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.
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 frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2014, 12:23:15 PM »
We don't know what came before the event, we don't say. it just happened we just don't know.

and that's the boat we're all floating in... maybe someday we'll figure it out... maybe not.
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2014, 12:28:04 PM »
The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

that sounds like an attribute (a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something)... would you care to further define this "god"...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #15 on: August 07, 2014, 12:30:59 PM »
The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

that sounds like an attribute (a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something)... would you care to further define this "god"...?

It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.
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 frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2014, 12:43:48 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #17 on: August 07, 2014, 01:08:00 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.
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

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12198
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #18 on: August 07, 2014, 01:27:15 PM »
so your conclusions are that this god doesn't exist... no?

Where in my or Astreja's posts did you read that?  Please quote it, if you can.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #19 on: August 07, 2014, 01:28:19 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.

o.k., so this "god" you mention is unable to exist because the "quantum state" is unstable.  got it, this god cannot exist in an unstable quantum state... any other characteristics of this "god" you would like to share...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #20 on: August 07, 2014, 01:32:40 PM »
so your conclusions are that this god doesn't exist... no?

Where in my or Astreja's posts did you read that?  Please quote it, if you can.

i never claimed you or astreja said that... that is why i framed it as a question... i read your premise and concluded that you do not believe that this "god" exists.  if i have come to the wrong conclusion, perhaps i misunderstood your premise...
« Last Edit: August 07, 2014, 01:48:06 PM by frank callaway »
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #21 on: August 07, 2014, 02:05:48 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.

o.k., so this "god" you mention is unable to exist because the "quantum state" is unstable.  got it, this god cannot exist in an unstable quantum state... any other characteristics of this "god" you would like to share...?

It is not a characteristic of the god, it is a characteristic of the state that existence is unstable.
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 frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #22 on: August 07, 2014, 02:17:29 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.

o.k., so this "god" you mention is unable to exist because the "quantum state" is unstable.  got it, this god cannot exist in an unstable quantum state... any other characteristics of this "god" you would like to share...?

It is not a characteristic of the god, it is a characteristic of the state that existence is unstable.

how do know that this "god" cannot exist in an unstable quantum state...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +263/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #23 on: August 07, 2014, 02:31:35 PM »
yes, and i've never seen anyone claw their way out of the grave either... so your conclusions are that this god doesn't exist... no?

Well, I'm a hard agnostic / soft atheist, so I'm inclined to being unconvinced about the "supernatural."  The lack of spontaneous, total regenerative healing in the amputee population is one of many things that reinforces My position, because I'd expect more spectacular results if we were actually dealing with beings capable of creating, destroying or transmuting matter/energy at will.

One of many problems in introducing a god into a problem is the lack of consistency in the definition.  Immanent or transcendent?  Male, female, many, singular?  Material, immaterial or both?  Why can't it be detected in the physical universe?  Is it supernatural, or just a part of the natural universe that we haven't figured out yet, or a figment of the imagination?  If it's real, what does it want and why don't major religions agree on this?

In the meantime, I've taken the attitude "Not convinced; I'll believe it if and when I see it."  Even then, due to My inherent agnosticism, I'll be content to encounter a god-like being and not worry about whether it's really a god.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #24 on: August 07, 2014, 02:42:24 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.

o.k., so this "god" you mention is unable to exist because the "quantum state" is unstable.  got it, this god cannot exist in an unstable quantum state... any other characteristics of this "god" you would like to share...?

It is not a characteristic of the god, it is a characteristic of the state that existence is unstable.

how do know that this "god" cannot exist in an unstable quantum state...?

Existence is unstable in those circumstances. Your sentence is self contradictory.
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

Online screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12198
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #25 on: August 07, 2014, 03:18:26 PM »
i never claimed you or astreja said that... that is why i framed it as a question...

well, maybe if you used standard punctuation and better grammar it would have actually looked like a question.  Instead you wrote:
so your conclusions are that this god doesn't exist... no?

You use "..." all over the place, almost as if they are single periods.  wtf is up with that?  If you wrote like someone who actually wanted to be understood it might have been written thusly:
Quote
so is it your conclusion that this god doesn't exist?

That would have clearly been a question.

i read your premise and concluded that you do not believe that this "god" exists.  if i have come to the wrong conclusion, perhaps i misunderstood your premise...

Of course I think there are no gods.  But my reason for that is not because amputees are not healed.  god not healing amputees does not prove there is no god.  But it does knock the legs out from under a certain kind of god.  As I said in my response, it means there are only certain conclusions about god that can be made. 



Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #26 on: August 07, 2014, 03:49:25 PM »
It is not an attribute of a god, it is an attribute of existence.

wait, what...?  you just said the following:

T=0 is itself an unstable quantum state

and then you said...

a god could not do it. The reason is that a god cannot exist outside a universe in order to create one.

so the obvious question is... why can't this "god" you mention, exist in the "unstable quantum state" which is t=0...?

Because it is unstable. Existence itself is unstable.

o.k., so this "god" you mention is unable to exist because the "quantum state" is unstable.  got it, this god cannot exist in an unstable quantum state... any other characteristics of this "god" you would like to share...?

It is not a characteristic of the god, it is a characteristic of the state that existence is unstable.

how do know that this "god" cannot exist in an unstable quantum state...?

Existence is unstable in those circumstances. Your sentence is self contradictory.

are you saying that this "unstable quantum state" is non-existent...?
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1410
  • Darwins +48/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #27 on: August 07, 2014, 03:54:04 PM »
Seriously Foxy  I wouldn't bother. he's trolling.
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline frank callaway

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 178
  • Darwins +1/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • it's a bird, it's a shark... you're fucked
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #28 on: August 07, 2014, 04:06:21 PM »
Seriously Foxy  I wouldn't bother. he's trolling.

am i being trolled right now...?  seriously, i'm not trolling.  i'm after the "precise idea".
When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.

-Jonathan Swift