crowTrobot
-
Content Count
4,408 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by crowTrobot
-
-
straw man. obviously i'm just assessing evidence as to whether there is any reason to think a concerned creator exists or not, not claiming to understand the mind of god.you are the one making the claim in this thread - that god created the universe for us so we could love him. so far you have done nothing to support that claim.Of course it is well within your rights to explain how you can argue that you are completely capable of understanding the mind of the Creator of the universe, who exists outside of time and space and can see eternity for what it is.Of course you can understand Him, you can probably even speak for Him, you do for everyone else. The rest of us must face the tragic reality that we don't know everything, including the inner workings of the motivations of God. -
good - so far this thread was lacking in the usual unprovoked personal attacks on me meant to distract from your inability to intellectually support your own statements. glad to see you trying to bat 1.000.The rest of your posts is not relevant enough to discuss. I could go into why you once again got the issue wrong with regards to Satan denying God not being the same thing as Satan arguing that God didn't exist. The fact I have to explain why you are wrong is completely flabbergasting. I have found you to be completely lacking in the ability to converse with intelligently and/or honestly, so I will allow you your God given right to be wrong and ignore you.However should you in the future find yourself willing to actually discuss things instead of trolling like a clown, I will be happy to exercise my God given right to be right with you -
where? enlighten me. don't be lazyCrow, your logic is so out of whack
-
what about innocents suffering from birth defects, disease, and catastrophic natural disasters? do they also have the sins of their fathers to blame? if the US ever votes in gay marriage i should probably move out of the tsunami zone i'm currently living in.And as far as people who are innocent in their lives and still suffering, the actions of their father or father's father probably are the reason for the poverty in their lives. Would you have God make sure every child is born in Beverly Hills?It's easy to argue that if God were really loving than He would make life wonderful for everyone, but it really is simplistic. Actions have consequences. Removing all consequences from our actions isn't he answer, it's our actions that are to blame. And our actions that are based in sinful selfishness result in bad things often, so blaming God for letting us bear the brunt of our actions or others around us, isn't really rational.
cult speakThis really all comes from being unable to allow for the reality that God's ways aren't our ways. Our minds can not follow the reasons God has for things.
incorrect analogy. obviously satan didn't reject his existenceand belief in the objective existence of god or anything else is by definition not a matter of free will in the first place, unless it's a matter of some sort of willful brainwashing. genuine belief can only be something one is compelled to accept based on evidence, with no real choice in the matter.Why doesn't God show Himself in big signs across the universe so everyone would believe and go to heaven? I don't know, but I do know that Satan was in God's very presence and rejected Him, so free will is a powerful thing.
that's one of the more twistedly creative ways of stating pascal's wager i've ever heard. good job there.And I also know that if God did make us for fun and He is a Being with a cruel intention, then we still are stuck having to answer to Him, being self-righteous when standing before a cruel God is just as ineffective as being self-righteous as standing before a Just God. -
it also has the intelligent purple snorkwillers in andromeda as its center. does god favor us over them?According to Crow: it does. -
in case you're right i have that covered. i plan to die by flying a spaceship into a black hole so if zeus exists i can gain his forgiveness by making apollo and dionysus stop fighting and merge their ideals.After you die, which you surely will, when you reach the Gates of Olympus, which you surely will, and you are before Zeus, as you surely will be, you are going to fucking REGRET YOUR WILLFULLY IGNORANT POSITION ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT. -
in other words god made the universe just for us, but doesn't want us to think he did. so what exactly does he want us to think? that the universe was made for other life as well as us? that he doesn't exist?I am simply stating that maybe he never meant for the Earth or humans to see themselves as the center of everything.
depends on what definition of god you are referring to. you are (i assume) close enough to 100% sure to effectively be 100% sure that zeus doesn't exist. i happen to feel the same way about yahweh as you do about zeus for the same reasons.Atheists aren't completely sure they are correct in their non-belief.
it might keep certain atheists thinking about the possibility of some sort of deistic god. it does NOT make them think about the possible existence of yahweh any more than a sense of wonder about the universe makes you think zeus might exist.That small feeling and sense of wonder will keep them thinking about it, whether they admit it or not.
the views or actions of a small number of scientists do not represent all of science, dawkins does not claim to be sure there is no god of any kind, and your comments don't address my point.the percentage of scientists (in the US) that believe in an intervening god is less than half that of the general public. specifically among biologists geologists and astrophysicists it is even lower than that. that fact is not compatable with your suggestion that god intended for us to learn about him through studying the world around us.You mean like most of the scientists that predicted the demise of the United States Eastern Seaboard in the early 1990s?Last I looked the east coast was still in tact approaching 20years after "doomsday" or the Scientists that a pushing Man made global warming now, but without letting anyone see the raw data. You can have em. There are plenty all across the spectrum. The ones like Dawkins that act as if they know for sure their isn't a God, don't have suffecient evidence to support their claims. -
you mean maybe he didn't want the universe to LOOK human-centric even though it essentially is. sounds like an excuse.Maybe he didn't want the Universe to be humancentric.
that would be the same human-centric or not. if the universe consisted of nothing but our solar system we would still have a sense of wonder.in fact god is not required for that feeling - atheists certainly feel small and have a sense of wonder when contemplating "creation" even though they don't believe there is a higher purpose to it.Maybe he wanted us to feel small and look at all creation with a sense of wonder.
if so he's a monumental screw up, since the people doing the actual study and exploration (scientists) believe in him much less than the general populous.Maybe he designed the Universe for us to study and explore to learn more about who he is and who we are. -
if "made" for us in the creationist context i would expect it to be much smaller, younger, safer, and much more earth-centric. i would expect it NOT to appear that humans are the product of mindless evolution on an inconsequential planet lost in a vast universe that had been operating by purely mechanical principals with no regard for our existence for 14 billion years before we even got here. on the other hand if god designed the universe to produce sentient life through evolution in many places at many times, not just us, it's (slightly) more believable that the universe looks as it should. that belief would at least be a little less delusionally egocentric than the former.Out of curiosity...Let's say that yes, the universe was made just for lil ol us.You would expect what then? The universe to be smaller?
you mean what if we found that the universe is relatively small? we already know the minimum possible size of the universe, and even that is so large it's incomprensible. most of it isn't detectable. and most evidence points to our universe being exponentially larger than the minimum thanks to a probable faster-than-light inflationary period that would have happened soon after the big bang. it's quite possible what we are able to see in telescopes is only a vanishingly small fraction of what exists. most of the universe is of no consequence or use to us. we can't even see it to marvel about it.What would the implication be if we found the edges of the universe?(I'm not even sure if what I just said makes any sort of logical sense, but I think you get what I'm wondering about.) -
just us on earth? or sentient life in many places? pretty big universe to make just for lil ol us.Yes, us.To show His love and to receive love back -
there's a hindu guru claiming that right now, and literally millions of followers that believe himI think it was pretty common back then for people to claim virgin births. -
picture the surface of a spherical balloon that starts out as a point, then is slowly blown up. the surface of the balloon is always finite in size, yet no point on the surface is the "center" more than any other point. the initial point expands to become every point on the surface. our universe is sort of similar but with one extra spacial dimension which makes the geometry very hard to mentally picture. the initial singularlity (or whatever it was) has expanded to become all points in space equally. all points are the "center". the big bang happened everywhere in space equally.If that's true, then how could the universe be a finite size? That doesn't make sense to me. -
thanks for the response, but you seem to be lacking in sample size. over the last several months BG when challenged has frequently chosen to personally attack my motives or blatantly mischaracterize things i've said as an alternative to responding, on multiple occasions naming me when i'm not even involved in the debate. at least at first he was certainly doing this intentionally as a sort of combination intellectual dodge/smear campaign, although it might be more of an automated response at this point.You called him an "intellectually dishonest manipulative brainwashed tool."Intellectual dishonesty is: - the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading - the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context. I think we can dismiss the first part. You're probably saying that BG is intentionally ignoring certain arguments. Now, even though you've already dismissed my reasoning for my belief before you've even heard it, I would say that BG probably does ignore some arguments. I think sometimes he does it to tell a joke, sometimes he does it because he's being ganged up on and it's hard to get to everything, and I think a small part of the time he does it because he doesn't have a good answer for it. I don't think he's the only one guilty of that and I don't think it's significant enough to be an accurate label.
it means attempting to avoid having to intellectually support his own arguments by subverting the debate, which he has done in almost every recent thread including this one.Manipulative means using devious ways to control somebody. I don't see how that applies to him.
considering that as a YEC he believes things that a child can easily demonstrate to be false i think that's a bit naive. self-brainwashed in response to emotional need perhaps (possibly with help from AAA). how he got where he is isn't really relevant, but part of his brain isn't capable of thinking objectively about certain empirical issues. there is nothing natural about that.Brainwashed means someone has convinced him to believe something through force. I don't think he was forced into any beliefs. I think he came upon his beliefs naturally.
your example isn't relevant. he's been arguing against evolution and acting like he knows what he's talking about for years in this forum. saying he's not interested at this point is just an excuse for being wrong.What you just said is irrelevant. -
false. whatever modern moral consensus exists has its basis in empirical reasons/common sense. if you need god to tell you allowing murder is detrimental for human society you're pretty shallow.You must in fact borrow morality to show why your evolved morality is right or wrong. -
i said no such thing. i'm asking.Of course...you know exactly what he is basing his opinion on, why would I suspect anything different. -
care to elaborate? i don't care about how you justify specific docrine and i don't pretend to know much about it.the only thing i argue in relation to christianity is the historical accuracy of the bible, which is a subject i understand quite well.I know, but what can I do, you keep wanting to argue Christianity when you barely understand the basics -
no, he counts. although the sample size of your posts he's going by might be a little dubious given that his posts in recent threads have indicated he's not really following them.You don't count, because you don't fit into the world that crow has created around himself. -
not being interested in something is not an excuse for bad arguments.Because he completely believes in the theory that isn't evolution.I'm sure there are a lot of scientists who completely believe in evolution that aren't interested in creationism. -
why not? serious question.I don't agree with it. -
i wish.Also you are probably a 16 year old girl, in Nebraska. -
no, 4 years reading this forum allows me to speak for everyone. the consensus opinion among atheists here is that you are an intellectually dishonest manipulative brainwashed tool. notice nobody is denying it.LOL, that's what you think allows you to speak for everyone? 3 people and not even good examples at that. ( Except speedz, but who cares what he thinks ) -
you haven't tried to logically support anything you've said. it's just a barrage of hollow accusations. there's nothing to defend against.The "I know you are but what am I" defense?Really? -
no, don't want to infringe on your area of expertise.You could write a whole book on ways to debate without ever having to defend yourself with integrity. -
Of course..it's so obvious.You know, by using this logic and being ironic, you are dodging my question.alright, I guess you aren't gonna respond to the point being made....and then you wonder why people consider creationism dishonest....BG is so brainwashed that he is unable to process questions that he can't answer. It's not his fault, he really can't help it. Trust me, the stronger your point, the less likely he is to understand or respond to it. Once you accept this, you'll have more fun around here. Go back and look at the conversation...like always, we answer his challenges point by point, and he largely ignores everything. He likes to say that it's because it's not worth responding to, but deep down he probably knows that he just skims past anything he doesn't understand or can't refute.
Creation Question
in Religion
Posted