If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Monad Portal]

Yes it is. It is YOUR paradox.

there's no paradox, leprechaun cock-eater.

 

[Into the Night]

And factually incomplete. Almost laughably incomplete.
Because no theory of physics accounts for or explains consciousness, values, imagination, conscience, ideas, beliefs, ethics, creativity.

Both of you need to learn what 'fact' means.
It does NOT mean Universal Truth.

No theory of physics explains the existence of the Universe either.

 

[Into the Night]

I do not accept your stupid analogy that theists are like criminal defendants who have to provide explanations and alibis, while atheists are innocent and don't have to explain anything to anyone.

Contextomy fallacy. Go back and read his post again.

Atheists owe explanations to theists (and vice versa) as much as Epicureans owed explanations to Stoics.

Atheists owe nothing to theists. Theists owe nothing to atheists.

Unlike you and every other atheist on this board, I have actually read and investigated the seminal atheist authors and influencers of the last 150 years, and understand they have a worldview. Which in essence is a belief in strict physical materialism and an assumption that life, the universe, and everything can be explained by purely inanimate naturalistic causes.

Science isn't religion.
Atheism isn't religion.

 

[Into the Night]

It's playing dumb because walking on frozen water is not a miracle, which is clearly implied.

Depends on who is walking on it! It's not as easy to walk on ice as you may think!
You should watch a game of broomball...the most hilarious sport you will ever watch! It is played on ice wearing just tennis shoes!

Still playing dumb....

Still playing dumb....

Argument of the Stone fallacies.

Loading the dice. You're starting with the assumption that gods exist and work backwards from there.

No dice. Just faith. Yes, I am assuming that God exists and work from there, just as you are assuming that no god or gods exist and work from there. Your religion is no more or less dependent on faith than mine is. You just can't admit that since you're a fundamentalist.

Already covered multiple times.

I would love to believe in gods. I would love to believe that I can exist in perpetuity in some eternal family reunion.

No, you don't. You are now locked in another paradox.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and nobody has provided extraordinary evidence.

You can't make any evidence just disappear.

View: https://youtu.be/9A-Z47wIgu4?feature=shared

That's not what is being implied. A grown man walking on a frozen body of water isn't a miracle. It's not even noteworthy.

It is noteworthy, since YOU claimed walking on water is impossible.

Right, so there were animal sacrifices in the Bible.

Right so there were animal sacrifices in the Bible.

So?

Shall we get into how many animals are sacrified so people can eat? Shall we get into how we all feed on death?

 

[Into the Night]

I think you're looking at "probable" and "possible" as though they are the same thing.

Nope. The two words have very different meanings. You just don't get it. I guess you are still having trouble with English.

In a universe where there is so much unknown, more or less anything is possible. It's possible there are gods, just as it's possible there's a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. I'm looking at what is probable based on what is known and reasonable.

Math error: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randX.

Attempted proof by ignorance.

There's very little of what we believe to be true that is based on first hand observation, so we are left to look at evidence and information and make a judgement on what is likely to be true.

But you try to ignore evidence. You cannot make evidence just disappear.
Math error: Failure to declare boundary. Failure to declare randx.

Denial of phenomenology.

EVERYTHING one observes is evidence only.
EVERYTHING you consider 'real' is considered True.

You are not everyone. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
Attempted proof by omniscience.

 

[Into the Night]

yes.

burning live animals was done all day long at the temple.

I prefer boiling live crabs and lobsters. Much better than burning them, though roasing live oysters isn't bad at all!

 

[Into the Night]

And probability is normally based on math. Show me your math for whatever probability you assign.

He has committed this math error multiple times. He does not know probability mathematics. 'Vegas just loves people like him!

 

[Monad Portal]

I prefer boiling live crabs and lobsters. Much better than burning them, though roasing live oysters isn't bad at all!

that ain't kosher.

 

[ZenMode]

Anyway...I hope all your blind guesses about gods are great for you in 2026...and that you continue to think your blind guesses are scientific and logical...and the blind guesses of the religionists you seem to detest are not.

They are scientific in nature. The gods of man are claimed to do things that fly in the face of science.

 

[ZenMode]

Depends on who is walking on it! It's not as easy to walk on ice as you may think!

Clearly you aren't taking this conversation seriously.

 

[ZenMode]

But you try to ignore evidence. You cannot make evidence just disappear.

I have never ignored it. I've repeatedly said it is insufficient.

Stop making shit up

At the very least, every single time I said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I am saying the evidence is insufficient.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you have an equation for everything you believe to be true or untrue and your level of confidence?

He doesn't need one. Neither do you.

How confident are you that water is 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen and can you show your math for it?

100%. This is the definition of water. No math required. The molecule is written H2O. It is also called dihydrogen monoxide (or DHMO for short), also known as hydric acid, also known as hydrogen hydroxide. It's pH is 7. It's boiling point is 100 deg C and it's freezing point is at 0 deg C (standard pressure for both values). Upon freezing, it easily forms crystaline lattices, giving snowflakes, for example, their six sided shape. This crystaline lattice structure also requires more space than the liquid form. This can cause iron and copper pipes to burst and is a principle cause of cracking rocks, slowly converting them to sand and gravel.

Most other materials dissolved in water (there are of course exceptions!). Carbon dioxide can dissolve in water up to an equilibrium reaction of absorbing and venting CO2. This is why soda goes flat when opened and left to sit out.

The shape of the molecule is polar, having a negative and positive side to it. By itself, water is an insulator. Impurities quickly bind to one side or the other of the water molecule, however, making the solution conductive. Most water has impurities in it, making it dangerous around electrical devices.

Rain is typically acidic. As it gathers into creeks and rivers, flowing to the sea, chemical erosion neutralizes the acid and the solution becomes alkaline. This is why ocean water is alkaline. The pH across the oceans is inconsistent. It is not possible to measure the pH of an ocean.

Water is a buffer for both acids and alkalines buffering by dilution. This can often cause an exothermic reaction, so always add acid or alkaline to water, never the reverse, particularly with strong acids or alkalines.

A unique material, water is the closest thing to the universal solvent. It will dissolve glass, plastics, and stone, given time.

Water also makes a unique carrier for an electrolyte, and many batteries depend on a solution in water to act as such. A car battery is an obvious example (a sulfuric acid solution, 30-38% concentration by weight). This characteristic also makes water a primary corrosive agent in such things as cars, aircraft, boats, etc. Any two dissimilar metals in contact with each other will result in corrosion of one of them in the presence of water.

Nope. I'm taking various pieces of information into consideration when coming to my conclusion and my degree of confidence.

Fine. Nothing wrong with that. It is NOT, however, a proof.

Among those pieces of information, I consider the state of the world when man was believing in and writing about gods and the claims they made. I also consider the state of the world now and the fact that the same gods who were allegedly so active in the world have completely vanished.

God has not vanished at all. His influence is still felt across the world today.

Seems to be an interesting coincidence that gods have all but vanished as man has become more educated about science, the world/solar system, etc.

God has not vanished at all. Science has nothing to do with it. Science is completely atheistic.

 

[Into the Night]

Clearly you aren't taking this conversation seriously.

YOU are the one making wacky claims! Why should I take you seriously?

 

[Into the Night]

I have never ignored it. I've repeatedly said it is insufficient.

Evidence is evidence. You cannot make it disappear. Evidence is not a quantity.

Stop making shit up

LIF. Grow up.

At the very least, every single time I said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", I am saying the evidence is insufficient.

Evidence is evidence. You cannot make it disappear. Evidence is not a quantity.

 

[Into the Night]

there's no paradox, leprechaun cock-eater.

You cannot make your paradox disappear by denying it. The ONLY way to resolve a paradox is to utterly discard one of the conflicting arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

that ain't kosher.

I'm not Jewish.

 

[Into the Night]

They are scientific in nature. The gods of man are claimed to do things that fly in the face of science.

A blind guess it not science.
You don't get to speak for all gods or for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

You routinely deny theories of science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I have also seen you deny the ideal gas law, Newton's law of motion, Newton's law of gravitation, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and Plank's law.

You routinely deny engineering like the N95 specification.

 

[Cypress]

They are scientific in nature.

There are no scientific explanations for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin and cause of consciousness and conscience, the origin and cause of the laws of nature, the origin and cause of the mathematical rationality of the universe, or even any explanation for the meaning and purpose of life, the universe, and everything.

And there doesn't seem to be any conceivable chance on the distant horizon there will ever be adequate scientific explanations for them.

One of the most irrational explanations I can think of is that it's all somehow due to irrational random chance and purely inanimate physical reasons.

 

[ZenMode]

A blind guess it not science.
You don't get to speak for all gods or for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

You routinely deny theories of science, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I have also seen you deny the ideal gas law, Newton's law of motion, Newton's law of gravitation, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and Plank's law.

You routinely deny engineering like the N95 specification.

There's no blind guess and, despite your best attempts at spin, the claims made about the Christian god/Jesus are claims that fly in the face of science.

 

[Monad Portal]

I'm not Jewish.

maybe someday.