God is real

Both views require the same amount of faith

Btw, I've always asked myself that, if you believe there's nothing after death, than what do you live for? What is your goal in life?

Kirjoittanut Tunder4, 25.04.2014 at 12:19

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 11:57

Kirjoittanut Tunder4, 25.04.2014 at 11:56

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 11:49

Kirjoittanut Tunder4, 25.04.2014 at 11:47

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 11:46

Kirjoittanut 4Chan, 25.04.2014 at 10:42

Nobody ever told me about God.

Probably fake though.

Gibe argument pls.

I believe god doesn't exist, therefore he doesn't

I beleieve God exists. Therefore he does.

It doesn't matter how correct your formula to determine god existence is, if any of it is wrong, then the result is wrong, in this case my argument entirely destroys your credibility.

*facepalm* Your argument is an opinion. Opinions =/= truth

My argument is only a clone of the argument you and other religious fags use.
As you see, it had no grounds in logic, therefore the belief in god is ilogical and absurd.

What's funny is that I used logic in my arguments. Don't call me ''religious fag'' too please, makes you look immature.

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 12:30

Both views require the same amount of faith

Btw, I've always asked myself that, if you believe there's nothing after death, than what do you live for? What is your goal in life?

Faith is believing in things without evidence. You don't require faith to say flying pink unicorns don't exist. Therefore, both views do not require "the same amount of faith". If I talked about this unicorn all day to you, you'd call me crazy and dial 911. That's the difference: some people are mentally healthy, and others are crazy lunatics. I won't even adress the second point because it's so ridiculous, it's out of this world.

Kirjoittanut 4Chan, 25.04.2014 at 11:54

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 11:46

Kirjoittanut 4Chan, 25.04.2014 at 10:42

Nobody ever told me about God.

Probably fake though.

Gibe argument pls.

This and everything the universe and life were/is an accident.

Good point

George Carlin calls it the big electron.

Kirjoittanut Unleasheddd, 25.04.2014 at 12:51

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 12:30

Both views require the same amount of faith

Btw, I've always asked myself that, if you believe there's nothing after death, than what do you live for? What is your goal in life?

Faith is believing in things without evidence. You don't require faith to say flying pink unicorns don't exist. Therefore, both views do not require "the same amount of faith". If I talked about this unicorn all day to you, you'd call me crazy and dial 911. That's the difference: some people are mentally healthy, and others are crazy lunatics. I won't even adress the second point because it's so ridiculous, it's out of this world.

Where's your evidence for the big explosion 13 billion years ago, which if you can't prove, than everything else falls down with it

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 17:22

Where's your evidence for the big explosion 13 billion years ago, which if you can't prove, than everything else falls down with it

There's nothing about an explosion in any of my posts. You must be hallucinating - typical of religious ppl

Kirjoittanut Unleasheddd, 25.04.2014 at 17:24

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 17:22

Where's your evidence for the big explosion 13 billion years ago, which if you can't prove, than everything else falls down with it

There's nothing about an explosion in any of my posts. You must be hallucinating - typical of religious ppl

Then what is your explanation of how everything came to be?

Why does it matter? Who gives a fuck? Why must have it all come from god? How does your question validate religion?

The universe was not, and then was.

For cosmology:
Spacetime had no meaning before the big bang. There were zero points and null time.
Zero points because the energy potential of the Big Bang was never actualized, so any point in the 'unemerged' universe was the same as any other, undifferentiated, undifferentiable and with no possibility of change.
The 'volume' of the space is without meaning, but was very small but larger than 'nothing' (if I remember current theory)

Null time (different from zero time) because time didn't exist.

At the Big Bang there was one point and zero time.

Immediately after the Big Bang there were infinite points (but not infinite spatial volume) and planck time = 1 (if one accepts that time is not continuous and that there are discrete measurements of vibrational existence, and that the smallest unit of time is the amount of time for light in a vacuum to travel one planck length)

A unit of Planck length is whatever the shortest meaningful distance, ever, is.

Since there was no space, there was no spot. Since there was no time, there was no 'before' the Big Bang.
===
To answer Cascaval, there is no meaningful scientific explanation of 'before' because there are no falsifiable claims of what *started* the Big Bang, nor can there be.
This is the realm of metaphysics.
Many religions *also* address, in a meaningful way, metaphysical questions.

To respond to Unleasheddd, many people 'give a fuck', and think it matters. You don't give a fuck, and it doesn't matter to YOU because you are an ignorant person.
Some people look for meaning outside of the *wisdom* of George Carlin.
I can't speak to you, but George Carlin *clearly* gave a fuck - he *thought a lot about a lot of things* before coming to his conclusions.
I imagine (if he gave a fuck) he would be horrified that people use his opinions as the *end state* of their congnitive growth, and not the start of their quest for meaning and knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/
Came across this a few minutes ago.
A formerly metaphysical speculation (quantum information theory points to quantum entanglement as the cause of thermodynamic equilibrium - entropy) has recently become a scientific theory, with implications that may shake the 'arrow of time' - a fundamental physical 'law'.

Why this matters to this discussion:
1. It demonstrates how metaphysical speculation often precedes scientific inquiry - the lack of falsifiability which prevents the metaphysical conjecture from being considered as a scientific hypothesis does NOT affect the Truth State of the speculation.

2. It explains why the energy of the universe can be considered constant (zero entropy) along the entire time scale of universe/

3. (not mentioned in the article - an argument I have come up with independently)
Metaphysically, it could explain how null time and zero point space could have transformed into the present day universe - all it would take is a small amount of information to leak from one universe in the multiverse to our universe.

The incidence of information leak across universes is highly improbable: vanishingly small - but with an uncountably large number of universes in the multiverse, information leak will happen.

4. 'New Atheism' refuses to consider propositions which lack falsifiability as 'unscientific'. An explanation of why the arrow of time points in one direction, or why the universe hasn't reached maximum entropy, or why there is a difference between the start and end of the universe, even though both would seem to have maximum entropy.

Kirjoittanut Unleasheddd, 25.04.2014 at 12:51

Kirjoittanut Guest, 25.04.2014 at 12:30

Both views require the same amount of faith

Btw, I've always asked myself that, if you believe there's nothing after death, than what do you live for? What is your goal in life?

Faith is believing in things without evidence. You don't require faith to say flying pink unicorns don't exist. Therefore, both views do not require "the same amount of faith". If I talked about this unicorn all day to you, you'd call me crazy and dial 911. That's the difference: some people are mentally healthy, and others are crazy lunatics. I won't even adress the second point because it's so ridiculous, it's out of this world.

Mental health (as I have previously, laboriously and accurately described) speaks very much to a cultural consensus.
There are very few sincere believers in pink unicorns.
There are many sincere believers in no god/s.
There are many sincere believers in god/s.
The fact that many people believe in a proposition very much affects the 'quantity' of faith required to believe in an unproved proposition.

If you are brought into a room with a total stranger and both you and the stranger are asked to look through a glass wall at another room, and both of you are asked 'what is in the other room' and you both answer simultaneously, and the stranger answers 'a pink unicorn' while you answer nothing, because you see nothing ...
1. What number of people, simultaneously answering 'pink unicorn' while you see nothing, would make you challenge your observation?
2. If the answer is nothing, what evidence, other than entering the glassed in room and observing a pink unicorn, would you accept that your senses are wrong?
3. Would you question your senses more or less if everyone you ever knew (who was still alive) was in the same room and reported observing a pink unicorn?

In any case, this relatively elementary though experiment demonstrates that 'more faith' is required to accept propositions that are highly controversial.
Please note: I do not speak to 'truth value' of a proposition, only the quantity of faith varies by person and by proposition.

Since I've been acusssed that ALL my knowledge comes from carlin, I might aswell use one of his lines, by modifying it a little:

Now for those of you who still believe in God and you insist on calling it like that, one last assignment for you:

Click here: http://www.troll.me/images/carl-sagan/no-evidence-fuck-you.jpg

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 11:49

Since I've been acusssed that ALL my knowledge comes from carlin, I might aswell use one of his lines, by modifying it a little:

Now for those of you who still believe in God and you insist on calling it like that, one last assignment for you:

Click here: http://www.troll.me/images/carl-sagan/no-evidence-fuck-you.jpg

Ffs I gave you evidence

You know, all of them are fake, but Christianity is true. Why?! Because we say so, DUUH

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 11:49

Since I've been acusssed that ALL my knowledge comes from carlin, I might aswell use one of his lines, by modifying it a little:

Now for those of you who still believe in God and you insist on calling it like that, one last assignment for you:

Click here: http://www.troll.me/images/carl-sagan/no-evidence-fuck-you.jpg

No, that's not what I said. This is what I said: "Some people look for meaning outside of the *wisdom* of George Carlin."

Some P not GC
GC
(nothing can be logically deduced from the premise)

Some People don't Grab Cock.
Unleashed Grabs Cock.
Even though one may make an inference from this statement, there is no deduction one can make, outside of the statements already present.
That's two logically invalid statements in one day.

Kirjoittanut zombieyeti, 01.05.2014 at 17:16

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 11:49

Since I've been acusssed that ALL my knowledge comes from carlin, I might aswell use one of his lines, by modifying it a little:

Now for those of you who still believe in God and you insist on calling it like that, one last assignment for you:

Click here: http://www.troll.me/images/carl-sagan/no-evidence-fuck-you.jpg

No, that's not what I said. This is what I said: "Some people look for meaning outside of the *wisdom* of George Carlin."

Some P not GC
GC
(nothing can be logically deduced from the premise)

Some People don't Grab Cock.
Unleashed Grabs Cock.
Even though one may make an inference from this statement, there is no deduction one can make, outside of the statements already present.
That's two logically invalid statements in one day.

LOL. I laughed my ass off

Except I wasn't talking about you. Stop being so self-important. See what I did there? I will give you a hint (because you are stupid) - Carlin xaxaxa

You're not that great. A great kike *cough cough* I mean Israeli woman said this.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 16:48

You know, all of them are fake, but Christianity is true. Why?! Because we say so, DUUH

It would have been difficult to select worse evidence to make your argument.
You selected an infographic which demonstrates or suggests:
... Christianity has limited animistic roots ...
... has an ancient origin ...
... is the center of the graphic ...
... influences the largest quantity of modern day religions ...
... is separate from Islam ...
... And is titled The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

The center of an evolutionary infographic (illustration), historically, has been occupied by the (surviving/fittest/superior) species, above all others.
It doesn't mean that the other species are extinct (or to continue your analogy, 'fake') merely that they don't have evolutionary primacy.

In one fell swoop you have answered your own question, though I don't think that was your intent ....

I won't count this as a 'daily fallacy' however, just chronic ... self-refutation.
EDIT: I think the infographic is flawed, because Islam has Christian roots - Isa, a prophet in Islam, is better known in the west as Jesus.

Kirjoittanut zombieyeti, 01.05.2014 at 17:31

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 16:48

You know, all of them are fake, but Christianity is true. Why?! Because we say so, DUUH

It would have been difficult to select worse evidence to make your argument.
You selected an infographic which demonstrates Christianity has no animistic roots ...
... has an ancient origin ...
... is the center of the graphic ...
... influences the largest quantity of modern day religions ...
... is separate from Islam ...
... And is titled The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

The center of an evolutionary infographic, historically, has been occupied by the most recent (surviving/fittest/superior) species.
In one fell swoop you have answered your own question, though I don't think that was your intent ....

You don't have any eye problem, but you are blind. I pity you.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 17:36

Kirjoittanut zombieyeti, 01.05.2014 at 17:31

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 16:48

You know, all of them are fake, but Christianity is true. Why?! Because we say so, DUUH

It would have been difficult to select worse evidence to make your argument.
You selected an infographic which demonstrates Christianity has no animistic roots ...
... has an ancient origin ...
... is the center of the graphic ...
... influences the largest quantity of modern day religions ...
... is separate from Islam ...
... And is titled The Evolutionary Tree of Religion

The center of an evolutionary infographic, historically, has been occupied by the most recent (surviving/fittest/superior) species.
In one fell swoop you have answered your own question, though I don't think that was your intent ....

You don't have any eye problem, but you are blind. I pity you.

Your lack of reason is your reason for being.
I despise you more than I pity you, and I don't despise you very much.

Kirjoittanut zombieyeti, 01.05.2014 at 17:41

I despise you more than I pity you, and I don't despise you very much.

It's natural to despise me. I have exposed your hypocrisy, stupidity, and irrational belief in god countless times. Truth is inconvenient to you. Truth to blind, religious fools such as yourself is like sunlight to the vampire. It's tragic, but it is what it is. I dream of the day people like you will not exist anymore.

Kirjoittanut Unleashed, 01.05.2014 at 17:47

Kirjoittanut zombieyeti, 01.05.2014 at 17:41

I despise you more than I pity you, and I don't despise you very much.

It's natural to despise me. I have exposed your hypocrisy, stupidity, and irrational belief in god countless times. Truth is inconvenient to you. Truth to blind, religious fools such as yourself is like sunlight to the vampire. It's tragic, but it is what it is. I dream of the day people like you will not exist anymore.

Well now, my lucky day. Another VULVA 2fer.
I. Feel free to post THE BEST examples of my hypocricy, stupidity and irrational belief in God. Remember, the best! I can point to your inability to make a reasoned argument with just today's examples, or even just my reply to your above statement (that would be stupidity). As far as your hypocricy, I don't accuse people of that generally. Because it is a personal attack, rather than discussing the evidence and argument.
If you can find strong evidence of my purported belief in god, by all means post it.

Since I have <1000 posts, and since you couldn't have exposed more than an average of 10 examples of my hypocricy, stupidity and irrational beleif in god per post, apparently, 10,000 is the ceiling above which all numbers are meaninglessly uncountable (countless) to you.
Clearly, I have less than 1000 posts, so, 'uncountable' to Unleashed is something between 0 and 10,000.

II. Forget everything that I ever suggested. Before you learn about anything having to do with logic, learn to be able to grasp numbers >10,000. Arithmetic is a good start.
khanacademy.org
===
May I suggest you abandon the rational approach completely? It doesn't serve you well. Clearly it isn't working. Just go with pictures, insults and direct emotional appeals.
It couldn't be less effective than trying to reason with someone who can conceive of numbers greater than 10,001 - also it will work better with stupid people, your natural allies.

Formal, and Informal Fallacy Count, for just today: 3.

Kirjoittanut tophat, 01.05.2014 at 19:36

Kirjoittanut Skittzophrenic, 02.05.2014 at 01:57

Kirjoittanut tophat, 01.05.2014 at 19:36