:rofl:

180 writes: "I've already called you out on this, man, thoroughly debunking this BULL with their own words. Stop lying, Frank."

I post proof that what I said was correct...and he posts an emoticon.

A person with a bit of ethical backbone would have simply acknowledged that I was correct. Even a LITTLE TINY bit of ethical backbone.

Here's one back atcha: :razz:

A person with a bit of ethical backbone would have simply acknowledged that I was correct. Even a LITTLE TINY bit of ethical backbone. — Frank Apisa

But you're not correct, Frank. That's what so laughable. You're so wrong because your statements on this topic are, more often than not, not even false. :lol:

You are the one making the assertion that the existence of a god would violate physics. — Frank Apisa

Yeah, because it would. At the very least a definition of God includes an immaterial being that causes physical effects through creation or somehow interfering in our day to day lives. That is physically impossible, because we are able to explain all effects through physical causes.

The existence of a god might not violate physics that we simply do not yet know. — Frank Apisa

Unless the physics of the future refutes physical causality the existence of God would still violate physics.

I'm willing to go with your definition. — Frank Apisa

Then explain how science depends on faith instead of reason.

That is the worst attempt at a syllogism I've seen in quite a while. You did not even come close, but thank you for the laugh. — Frank Apisa

Then show which premise is incorrect, or fallacy I committed.

Ummm...only three words there. Which one did you not understand? — Frank Apisa

I mean why would it be more likely to fall towards the Earth? If it’s because the laws of physics make it more likely to do so, then you’re implying that it is unlikely for the laws of physics to be violated, which is precisely the same logic I’m using to show why it’s unlikely that any Gods exist.

Then explain how science depends on faith instead of reason. — Pinprick

At best, Frank's "science depends on faith" depends on faith (even, or especially, to him). Bet you two bits, Pinprick, nothing remotely like the explanation you're asking of him will be forthcoming. Here comes another (more or less) "Because I say so" ...

180 Proof
1.3k
A person with a bit of ethical backbone would have simply acknowledged that I was correct. Even a LITTLE TINY bit of ethical backbone.
— Frank Apisa
But you're not correct, Frank. That's what so laughable. You're so wrong because your statements on this topic are, more often than not, not even false. :lol: — 180 Proof

C'mon, 180. A bit of originality would be welcome from you.

Anyway...of course I am correct.

But you still are not ethical enough to concede it.

My guess: You are an atheist. Just about every person who uses atheist as a descriptor blindly guesses that there are no gods...or blindly guesses that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. But they like to pretend that their blind guesses are actually something scientific or logical.

Poor them.

Pinprick
238
You are the one making the assertion that the existence of a god would violate physics.
— Frank Apisa

Yeah, because it would. At the very least a definition of God includes an immaterial being that causes physical effects through creation or somehow interfering in our day to day lives. That is physically impossible, because we are able to explain all effects through physical causes.

The existence of a god might not violate physics that we simply do not yet know.
— Frank Apisa

Unless the physics of the future refutes physical causality the existence of God would still violate physics.

I'm willing to go with your definition.
— Frank Apisa

Then explain how science depends on faith instead of reason.

That is the worst attempt at a syllogism I've seen in quite a while. You did not even come close, but thank you for the laugh.
— Frank Apisa

Then show which premise is incorrect, or fallacy I committed.

Ummm...only three words there. Which one did you not understand?
— Frank Apisa

I mean why would it be more likely to fall towards the Earth? If it’s because the laws of physics make it more likely to do so, then you’re implying that it is unlikely for the laws of physics to be violated, which is precisely the same logic I’m using to show why it’s unlikely that any Gods exist. — Pinprick

You also lack what it takes to acknowledge the obvious...that one cannot logically or scientifically come to "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely one way or the other."

Some people blindly guess one way or the other on those questions...and just cannot acknowledge they are blindly guessing.

You are not using logic to show it is unlikely that any gods exist. You are using stubbornness to show that you do not have the ethical qualities needed to acknowledge that it cannot be done. The finest minds that have ever lived on our planet have tried IN BOTH DIRECTION...and failed miserably. But you suppose you have done it here in this forum!!!

That should be a clue that you are kidding yourself. I doubt you will take it.

... one cannot logically or scientifically ...

Some people blindly guess one way or the other ... and just cannot acknowledge they are blindly guessing. — Frank Apisa

@Pinprick :point: Told ya! :yawn:

180 Proof
1.3k
... one cannot logically or scientifically ...

Some people blindly guess one way or the other ... and just cannot acknowledge they are blindly guessing.
— Frank Apisa
@Pinprick :point: Told ya! :yawn: — 180 Proof

Yup...I told the truth.

I coulda told you that!

You are not using logic to show it is unlikely that any gods exist. You are using stubbornness to show that you do not have the ethical qualities needed to acknowledge that it cannot be done. — Frank Apisa

Lol, logic is stubborn...

The finest minds that have ever lived on our planet have tried IN BOTH DIRECTION...and failed miserably. But you suppose you have done it here in this forum!!! — Frank Apisa

How many of these “finest minds” support your claims?

I’m disappointed in you Frank, but not surprised. I gave you every opportunity to demonstrate where my faults are and you refuse to engage me. You just resort to parroting yourself. Maybe eating your own words will make point easier to digest...

Yup...just insults and mocking comments.

If you could defeat the argument...you would do it in an instant. But you cannot — Frank Apisa

Enjoy your just deserts Frank. Bon appetit. :vomit:

Pinprick :point: Told ya! :yawn: — 180 Proof

:roll:

Pinprick
239
You are not using logic to show it is unlikely that any gods exist. You are using stubbornness to show that you do not have the ethical qualities needed to acknowledge that it cannot be done.
— Frank Apisa

Lol, logic is stubborn...

The finest minds that have ever lived on our planet have tried IN BOTH DIRECTION...and failed miserably. But you suppose you have done it here in this forum!!!
— Frank Apisa

How many of these “finest minds” support your claims?

I’m disappointed in you Frank, but not surprised. I gave you every opportunity to demonstrate where my faults are and you refuse to engage me. You just resort to parroting yourself. Maybe eating your own words will make point easier to digest...

Yup...just insults and mocking comments.

If you could defeat the argument...you would do it in an instant. But you cannot
— Frank Apisa

Enjoy your just deserts Frank. Bon appetit. :vomit: — Pinprick

Yup...undoubtedly two atheists...in a world of denial.

To be fair, theists also are in denial, but at least most theists have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge they just "believe" the things they "believe." Atheists like you two kid yourselves further by pretending you are reaching your "beliefs" (your blind guesses) via science and logic. Most actual scientists and logicians would never pretend to arrive where you have. (That's the reason people like Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking became angry when called an "atheist.")

But...if the pretense helps make you feel safe...go for it.

It is actually fun to watch.

My guess is you will wake up to the truth at some point. It will be stunning when the realization hits. I hope you are not repairing a roof...or sawing at a tree branch on a ladder when it happens.

@DingoJones & @Pinprick -

Mister Frank is completely effin' delusional. :roll:

... pretending you are reaching your "beliefs" (your blind guesses) via science and logic ...if the pretense helps make you feel safe...

It is actually fun to watch. — Frank Apisa

It is not I who is delusional.

If you think you have arrived at "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" through logic or science...

...YOU are delusional.

But if you want to kid yourself...be my guest. It truly is fun to watch.

Happy Summer Solstice!

Stop trolling & projecting.

:mask: :victory:

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Happy Solstice!

Stop trolling & projecting. — 180 Proof

Happy Solstice back at you, 180.

I am not trolling or projecting. I started this thread. I reply to all postings. Please continue to post. I enjoy replying to your comments.

Have not read through everything posted so far but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyways.

If "God" exists then there is at least one thing about it that separates it from everything else. If we can't establish what those things are, then it's unclear what we are even talking about (i.e. "God" is unintelligible). However, if we are clear on what properties "God" has and no evidence supports "God" having them, then the "God" we've defined clearly doesn't exist. In that way, the idea that science has no bearing on the matter seems misguided.

I also can't figure out why anyone would want to set the bar any lower.

Too bad such crystal clear reasoning is and, no doubt, will be wasted on the resident "bar lowering" troll; well, join the club: Welcome to TPF!

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Sunlight Too bad such crystal clear reasoning is and, no doubt, will be wasted on the resident "bar lowering" troll; well, join the club: Welcome to TPF! — 180 Proof

That was almost beneath you...but like Trump, apparently there is no depth to which you will not sink.

Okay...ya gotta deal with your type if you want to discussing issues on the Internet.

Sunlight
2
Have not read through everything posted so far but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyways.

If "God" exists then there is at least one thing about it that separates it from everything else. If we can't establish what those things are, then it's unclear what we are even talking about (i.e. "God" is unintelligible). However, if we are clear on what properties "God" has and no evidence supports "God" having them, then the "God" we've defined clearly doesn't exist. In that way, the idea that science has no bearing on the matter seems misguided.

I also can't figure out why anyone would want to set the bar any lower. — Sunlight

Are you saying that no gods exist...and that you arrived at that "conclusion" through science or logic, Sunlight?

Or are you just trying to eliminate the question by suggesting it to be "misguided?"

As for Gods...

The knowledge of them..is there category..

So if we think those categories are alive..then yes..all those Gods exist.. not just as categories of knowledge but as individual beings..

Ah, my friend, I didn't name names; now you're just telling on your own self and projecting that on me as bad manners and whatnot. But anyway, Frank, since you went there - casting your usual morning aspersions - how about proving me/us wrong about you and "raise the bar" up to @Sunlight's height. If you dare. If you ain't too scared. :smirk:

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Ah, my friend, I didn't name names; now you're just telling on your own self and projecting that on me as bad manners and whatnot. But anyway, Frank, since you went there - casting your usual morning aspersions - how about proving me/us wrong about you and "raise the bar" up to Sunlight's height. If you dare. If you ain't too scared. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Why don't you man up, if you are able, and acknowledge that the remark was aimed at me? No need to be cowardly about it.

If Sunlight wants to have a conversation with me, I am more than willing. We'll see if he/sh wants to.

In the meantime, I know you cannot calculate the "likelihood" that "no gods is more likely than at least one god" nor "at least one god is more likely than no gods."

Both are nothing but blind guesses.

I get a kick out of atheists pretending their blind guess is something more.

The responses to this and other posts from Pinprick and jorndoe were disappointing. Props for trying, @180 Proof. At the very least, Frank's frequent evasions might serve as light entertainment to passersby. I won't be taking a swing, though. :victory:

I had to give you another chance to prove me/us wrong and again you whiffed.

Good on @Sunlight :up: - s/he knows flypaper when s/he sees it.

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa I had to give you another chance to prove me/us wrong and again you whiffed.

Good on Sunlight :up: - s/he knows flypaper when s/he sees it. — 180 Proof

I did not wiff...and your protestations of being charitable sound like the stuff Trump spews during his "speeches."

If Sunlight wants to discuss this issue with me...I am here to discuss it.

You really shouldn't let the fact that you are as much a "believer" as any theist bother you so. Bad for your blood pressure.