Scientific Proof Of God

[Rum]

Do we even have a fire alarm button for the forum ? What will he press before running away ?

There's little doubt he is dangerous in one way or another. I get a sense he is addicted to getting drunk/high and then getting on line and ranting. It is alarming stuff. The mods will have their work cut out for them when he loses it completely.

[Feck]

Yes probably.... but i'm loath to confirm his delusion that some sort of Gay NWO is silencing him .

[superuniverse]

Do we even have a fire alarm button for the forum ? What will he press before running away ?

lol we have no clue what you are talking about. the only reason mabus ran was to avoid being mobbed by his female atheist fans...

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

[JimC]

Any chance we can get Farley here?

Someone who is very good at sock-puppetry could be of assistance here...

[pErvinalia]

[Brian Peacock]

From "Why I Am Not A Christian"
by Bertrand Russell

"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. "

Probably the best you got, and he is not convincing either. He just decides to duck the question by not wasting any more "time" on it.

You missed the part where he said: "There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

[Hermit]

From "Why I Am Not A Christian"
by Bertrand Russell

"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. "

Probably the best you got, and he is not convincing either. He just decides to duck the question by not wasting any more "time" on it.

Russell dismisses the question about the first cause because it does not lead anywhere. I realised that in my early 20s. I started with the assumption that the universe had a beginning. There had to be something that caused it to come into existence out of nothing. Without invoking a supernatural entity that could do that, the origin of the universe was bound to remain shrouded in mystery. But what is achieved when you explain that origin with the agency of a supernatural entity, other than replacing one mystery with another?

I am actually completely indifferent in regard to the question about the existence of such an entity. For all I care, it might actually exist and it might have created the universe out of nothing. My indifference stems from the fact that it makes no difference whether we say the origin of the universe is entirely mysterious or if we say its originator is entirely mysterious. Waste of time, as Russell noted. He, like I, probably regarded the output of mystics as fevered, untestable speculations, and subsequent interpretations as even more speculative at best.

[superuniverse]

I like his argument.





Normally Dawkins bullies his opponents into submission. But he seems to be having a BAD DAY here....

[Feck]

Do we even have a fire alarm button for the forum ? What will he press before running away ?

I get a sense he is addicted to getting drunk/high and then getting on line and ranting. .

You say that like it's a bad thing

[pErvinalia]

@superuniverse is still regurgitating. No ability to put forth his own argument.

[superuniverse]

@superuniverse is still regurgitating. No ability to put forth his own argument.

He has slightly more ability to put forth arguments than you do... Just slightly...

[Brian Peacock]

I like his argument.

Yeah, shifting the burden is a piece of cake, ain't it? I'm not interested in why we shouldn't believe the claims and assertions of religion, I'm interested in why we should!

[superuniverse]

Now this is the "humanist" argument:

RELIGION PROVIDES AN ANTIDOTE TO THE FEAR AND TERROR OF DEATH. IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO BEAR CATASTROPHE OR ANY TYPE OF LOSS IN THIS LIFE WITH GREATER FORTITUDE. IT DEPRIVES DEATH OF MUCH OF ITS TERROR, SINCE KNOWING THAT A GOOD PERSON WILL SURVIVE IN THE AFTER-LIFE MAKES DEALING WITH THEIR DEATH A GREAT DEAL EASIER AS WE KNOW IT IS NOT THE END FOR THEM. THEREFORE IT SERVES THE SOCIAL GOOD AND SHOULD NOT BE RIDICULED.


Atheists,


but you have NO ANSWER TO DEATH... therefore you FAIL... (Remember the ANTIDOTE TO DEATH!)


the Death of Ath*ism



*********************************




REMEMBER THE DEATH TRAP!


**********************************




THE REAL QUESTION:


DOES ATHEISM HAVE A FUTURE?


AND THE ANSWER - NO!


Atheists,


GET OUT OF MY UNIVERSE


you little liars do nothing but antagonize…


and you try to eliminate all the dreams and hopes of humanity…


but you LOST…

[Feck]

Yep he can be annoying, he does confuse crazy with clever I guess we all play to our perceived strengths And the third person thing is a dead-giveaway to some really sad mental problems(yeah not even the fun ones) but if the forum can host ammo-sexual libtards then I can't really see how this poor sad deluded fool can't stay ..... I mean we could ban the posting of Depeche Mode videos but I feel the same about Zappa........

[superuniverse]

NEW VIDEO FROM THE *JREF* - YOU LOST THE WAR

Actually one of Mabus' conditions, apart from Tim Farley, is not to contact this old fart. Where's my MILLION DOLLARS? SCOFF