Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 05:06:48 PM
Actually, if god created space-time, and existed prior to it, he would have to exist outside of time itself and would by no means take time to do anything.

Which would beg the question as to why god would take six "days" to create the universe, rather than just doing it instantaneously.  Time implies fallibility.

No.  It still must be figurative, because it took significantly longer for the stars to form than for man to come into being.

----

Indeed, parroting off that question, how would creationists explain why man's ancestors' (homo erectus, habilis, etc)  fossils predate homo sapiens' by millions of years, and then mysteriously vanish.  Then, homo sapiens do not appear until significantly after said ancestors appeared; how does this fit with the notion that god created us all at the same time?

Clearly, your scientific knowledge on the matter is such that you find evolution and big bang cosmology to be even remotely related to one another.

Either way, since the big bang involved an expansion of both time and space, it requires no causation, since time did not exist before it (unless if we go down the multiple-universes route, in which case you simply get a circle; still no causation needed).

It sounds counter-intuitive, because our human nature demands that everything have a causation; but then we'd get into the question who or what created god.

You aren't much of a philosopher, are you?
You seem to see God as a being. Did it ever occur to you, that we the collective human soul are God?

Life is all around us, it's always looking for a place to be, whether it's a single cell , or a complex network of cells, it is life.

Think about it.

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 05:42:55 PM
You aren't much of a philosopher, are you?
You seem to see God as a being. Did it ever occur to you, that we the collective human soul are God?

Present scientific evidence supporting this notion.

Quote
Life is all around us, it's always looking for a place to be, whether it's a single cell , or a complex network of cells, it is life.

Now you're just pulling bullshit out of your ass; at no point does your spiritual rhetoric have anything to do with the thread topic, or the tangent you went on.  You've shifted from defending Genesis to coming up with a complete un-Christian definition of god, given that the Christian god existed in the absence of the universe and therefore cannot possibly be the collection of human souls.

Of course, such a theory is even easier to disprove, from a logical and scientific perspective.

Quote
Think about it.

I have.  Now, why don't you either a) stay on topic, b) present evidence to support your personal, spiritual beliefs or do both?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 06:01:33 PM
Present scientific evidence supporting this notion.

Present evidence refuting it.

QuoteNow you're just pulling bullshit out of your ass; at no point does your spiritual rhetoric have anything to do with the thread topic, or the tangent you went on.  You've shifted from defending Genesis to coming up with a complete un-Christian definition of god, given that the Christian god existed in the absence of the universe and therefore cannot possibly be the collection of human souls.

LOL!!!
You think I give a damn what you want?
I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in Religion, though I have great respect for those that do.
Religion is a creation of man.

Here is my take on the issue, we are a collective of souls, think omnipotent if you will.
We as a collective, (God) for lack of a better term, were pretty much bored with a fluid existence, so we created the expanse know as the universe.
We wanted the tangible, the ability to feel, smell, love hate, all of which is nonexistent as a fluid soul.
In reality, we are living in a non-reality, one of our very own making.
When you die, time is no longer of consequence, in fact, all that ever was no longer exists, we made a kind of hole in time, if you will, something, again, of our creation.
When you die, those that came before you, including the first human, to those of the future will all cease to exist in the very same moment you ceased to exist, the time equation will no longer exist.
Our entire existence took place on a grand scale far less than one fraction of a second.
Of course, such a theory is even easier to disprove, from a logical and scientific perspective.

QuoteI have.  Now, why don't you either a) stay on topic, b) present evidence to support your personal, spiritual beliefs or do both?

Apparently you don't think beyond the realm of the box you're trapped in.

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 07:08:50 PM
Present evidence refuting it.

Not only is your ignorance of basic scientific principles comparable to that of a high school dropout, you are also entirely ignorant on the fundamental logical principle that burden of proof resides on the person who makes the claim.

This should be quite self evident, but since I need to explain the most basic scientific and logical concepts to you, let me present to you this request:

Present evidence refuting the notion that magical monkeys that can breathe in space live on mars and watch our every move.

Good luck.

QuoteLOL!!!
You think I give a damn what you want?
I am not a Christian, nor do I believe in Religion, though I have great respect for those that do.
Religion is a creation of man.

Regardless, you were still acting as an apologist for the religion.  It's intellectually dishonest of you to suddenly drop the issue without so much as a reason or concession.

Quote
Here is my take on the issue, we are a collective of souls, think omnipotent if you will.

Then explain why, prior to active exploration of the Americas, those in Europe were entirely incapable of feeling, sensing or otherwise deducing the existence of native americans.

Explain why all life is completely helpless against a sufficiently close supernova if it is omnipotent.

Quote
We as a collective, (God) for lack of a better term, were pretty much bored with a fluid existence, so we created the expanse know as the universe.

You argue that god = collection of souls.  Presumably, souls exist as a product of living organisms; yet the universe, without a shadow of a doubt, predates life.  How can we have created the universe?

Or are you arguing that living organisms are merely a product of a collective soul or group of souls that created us because it was "bored"?

Of course, why an omnipotent being would experience emotions or any reminiscent of emotions of "boredom" is beyond me.

And if our creator(s) is/are omnipotent, why did it/they create sea creatures that can drown?

Quote
We wanted the tangible, the ability to feel, smell, love hate, all of which is nonexistent as a fluid soul.
In reality, we are living in a non-reality, one of our very own making.
When you die, time is no longer of consequence, in fact, all that ever was no longer exists, we made a kind of hole in time, if you will, something, again, of our creation.
When you die, those that came before you, including the first human, to those of the future will all cease to exist in the very same moment you ceased to exist, the time equation will no longer exist.
Our entire existence took place on a grand scale far less than one fraction of a second.

I hate to break it to you, but life is simply an arbitrary distinction of something capable of replication that excretes waste and reacts to stimuli.  We are made of the same elementary building blocks as everything else, so there is no conceivable physical mechanism from which we would be ruled by a fundamentally separate, omnipotent being.

Additionally, absolutely no evidence of telepathic communication or remote connection between organisms exist, so there is no possible manner in which we could all be "connected" in anything other than symbolic terms.

Quote
Apparently you don't think beyond the realm of the box you're trapped in.

You mean the box of logical thought?  You mean the realm of not believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever?

It's not open minded to believe in the ridiculous, in spite of contradicting evidence and a complete absence of evidence in the affirmative; it's simply idiocy.  Furthermore, it's incredibly close minded to refuse to submit your beliefs to intense scrutiny and logical analysis; it implies that you are unwilling to consider that your ideas may be wrong.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 07:30:52 PM
Not only is your ignorance of basic scientific principles comparable to that of a high school dropout, you are also entirely ignorant on the fundamental logical principle that burden of proof resides on the person who makes the claim.

This should be quite self evident, but since I need to explain the most basic scientific and logical concepts to you, let me present to you this request:

Present evidence refuting the notion that magical monkeys that can breathe in space live on mars and watch our every move.

Good luck.

Again, what part of "I don't give a damn what you want" do you not get?

QuoteRegardless, you were still acting as an apologist for the religion.  It's intellectually dishonest of you to suddenly drop the issue without so much as a reason or concession.

I have no idea what you are talking about, quote my post for reference.

QuoteThen explain why, prior to active exploration of the Americas, those in Europe were entirely incapable of feeling, sensing or otherwise deducing the existence of native americans.

Did you think that up all by yourself?
Now maybe you'd like to reread it and figure what in the Hell you are yammering on about.

Quote
Explain why all life is completely helpless against a sufficiently close supernova if it is omnipotent.

When did one hit, I must have missed it.

QuoteYou argue that god = collection of souls.  Presumably, souls exist as a product of living organisms; yet the universe, without a shadow of a doubt, predates life.  How can we have created the universe?

I see you're still stuck on that time thing, aren't you?

QuoteOr are you arguing that living organisms are merely a product of a collective soul or group of souls that created us because it was "bored"?

Yes, but instead of the term bored, we were looking for new experiences.
You really are stuck in a very small world, or rather box.
What do you think happens when you die? Do completely cease to exist, or does your human vessel cease to exist, but the entity that makes up Scifiman continues on.
But on to where? The answer is, back to where you were before your human experience.
Of course, why an omnipotent being would experience emotions or any reminiscent of emotions of "boredom" is beyond me.

QuoteAnd if our creator(s) is/are omnipotent, why did it/they create sea creatures that can drown?

Try and keep up, we are the creator, and like it or not, life is meant to be a series of hurdles and we are completely at the mercy of random action.
Did you really think life was meant to be a breeze?

QuoteI hate to break it to you, but life is simply an arbitrary distinction of something capable of replication that excretes waste and reacts to stimuli.  We are made of the same elementary building blocks as everything else, so there is no conceivable physical mechanism from which we would be ruled by a fundamentally separate, omnipotent being.

Well you're close, but who said anything about being ruled?
Think about it, life is actually an insult, we are not as independent as you may like to think, were slaves to plants, we need to care for them for our meager existence.
So who is the smart one, humans, or plants?

QuoteAdditionally, absolutely no evidence of telepathic communication or remote connection between organisms exist, so there is no possible manner in which we could all be "connected" in anything other than symbolic terms.

So because we are limited by our ignorance, your arrogance claims otherwise?
Do you even see just how stupid your statement was? Because we don't have the answer, therefore it does not exist?

QuoteYou mean the box of logical thought?  You mean the realm of not believing in something that makes no sense whatsoever?

This, from the being that is slave to plants?
You're a riot!

Quote
It's not open minded to believe in the ridiculous, in spite of contradicting evidence and a complete absence of evidence in the affirmative; it's simply idiocy.  Furthermore, it's incredibly close minded to refuse to submit your beliefs to intense scrutiny and logical analysis; it implies that you are unwilling to consider that your ideas may be wrong.

I'll get the last laugh, you'll see.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 03:57:23 PM
If god created the universe just for us, why make it impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore or noticeably shape?

Furthermore, why wait for nearly 14 billion years before creating us?

Better yet, why did it take you over a month to think of this answer? 

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 08:10:15 PM
Again, what part of "I don't give a damn what you want" do you not get?

I requested empirical evidence and you publicly REFUSED to do this.

In other words, you have a belief system that you openly believe in the absence of evidence.

And if you think wanting proof of a claim is silly, you clearly possess not the slightest ability for flexible thought.

Quote
I have no idea what you are talking about, quote my post for reference.

You:
Of course it went over your head, God does not work in our time frame, to God, mans entire existence is no more than a few hours to him.
Does that clear it up?

Question, what do you think created the universe?

Quote
Did you think that up all by yourself?
Now maybe you'd like to reread it and figure what in the Hell you are yammering on about.

Nothing I said was in any manner pedantic or difficult to understand.  You simply can't understand that, if we are spiritually connected together, yet cannot feel it, cannot detect it, act in blatant contradiction to the notion and are not affected by it at all, we might as well not be connected.  You are effectively saying that the animal we see is a duck, except that it does not look, walk, quack or in any way resemble a duck.

Quote
When did one hit, I must have missed it.

This is a perfect example of your criminal inability to formulate a logical argument: by this line of reasoning, I cannot correctly state that, if you are hit by a truck, you may die, because you haven't ever been hit by a truck before.

Quote
I see you're still stuck on that time thing, aren't you?

Science is, yes.  Living beings are highly dependent on time, and no evidence exists to suggests that any portion of us exists outside of it.

QuoteYes, but instead of the term bored, we were looking for new experiences.

Before we existed?  So this is our 'soul', right?

But wait; what physical process allows this whatever-you-call-it to be sentient?  Our mental processes are a result of neurological processes involving chemical reactions and the electrical impulses between neurons in our brain; how does this abstract entity think?  How would such a complex being come into existence, and how could it encompass the entire universe, given that the fastest stimuli would only travel at C?

Quote
You really are stuck in a very small world, or rather box.

It's incredible: you are obsessed with cultural superiority; believing that your subjective culture is superior to that of others, yet you believe in the relativity of facts, which are inherently objective.

Your outright refusal to provide evidence to substantiate your whim is proof of your close minded thought processes; you refuse to criticize your own beliefs through rational thought, and just assume it to be true.

Quote
What do you think happens when you die? Do completely cease to exist, or does your human vessel cease to exist, but the entity that makes up Scifiman continues on.

You're speaking mumbo jumbo here; the "entity" that is me is my brain.  When I die, my brain stops functioning and slowly decomposes.  At no point as any evidence suggested the existence of an extradimensional soul, and no rational mechanism for why it would arbitrarily exist in organisms subjectively defined as "sentient" exists.

Quote
But on to where? The answer is, back to where you were before your human experience.

Newsflash: there is conservation of energy.  There is conservation of momentum.  There is no conservation of consciousness.  You're just making up premises that suit your convenience and presuming that the universe has to follow your imaginary fantasies.  Sort of like the child who makes up rules to a game so that he always wins.

Quote
Of course, why an omnipotent being would experience emotions or any reminiscent of emotions of "boredom" is beyond me.

Hey; you've quite clearly admitted to having no proof of your whim, so this is basically your own imaginary friend.  Feel free to make up whatever you want.

Quote
Of course, why an omnipotent being would experience emotions or any reminiscent of emotions of "boredom" is beyond me.
Try and keep up, we are the creator, and like it or not, life is meant to be a series of hurdles and we are completely at the mercy of random action.
Did you really think life was meant to be a breeze?

Wait, so "the creator" would create sea creatures that can drown...to challenge these creatures and put them through hurdles?

Does he/she/it/they deem it important that whales are properly challenged in life?  That would imply that animals are really important unto themselves, and therefore must have rights.

QuoteWell you're close, but who said anything about being ruled?
Think about it, life is actually an insult, we are not as independent as you may like to think, were slaves to plants, we need to care for them for our meager existence.
So who is the smart one, humans, or plants?So because we are limited by our ignorance, your arrogance claims otherwise?

You're mixing philosophy and science here.  We can debate all day about the ignorance of the human race and exactly how much free will we possess; it is not a precedent from which to presume that an imaginary, undetectable entity encompassing all life exists.  It's one thing to believe in this symbolically; that you actually believe it literally exists is quite unsettling.

Quote
Do you even see just how stupid your statement was? Because we don't have the answer, therefore it does not exist?

Substitute "the answer" for "any empirical evidence, or mechanism from which it could exist".  Ergo, the level of evidence supporting it is precisely equal to the evidence supporting the existence of monkeys on mars.

Quote
This, from the being that is slave to plants?
You're a riot!

OK, now I'm beginning to believe that you've really just made this entire fiasco up to mess with me, and you are trolling your own board.  Someone who claims to have an intelligence quotient of over 160, yet believes in imaginary life-encircling spiritual forces clearly isn't thinking straight.

QuoteI'll get the last laugh, you'll see.

Okay, you either need clinical help, or are just a fucking moron.  Take your pick.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 03:57:23 PM
If god created the universe just for us, why make it impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore or noticeably shape?

At its most basic, Intelligent Design doesn't claim that the Universe was created just for us - just that it was created.

As to the Universe being "impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore...", just because we are incapable of traveling between stars now (actually some one with the handle Sci-Fi-Fan should know better than that!*) doesn't mean we won't be able to do so in the future.

*Multi-generational starships are within the capability of current or at very least not-too-distant-future technology. The trinary system of Alpha, Beta and Proxima Centaur is only about 4.5 light years away. Travelling only at 10% the speed of light the voyage would only take a couple of generations.

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Dr_Watt on July 20, 2012, 08:39:21 PM
At its most basic, Intelligent Design doesn't claim that the Universe was created just for us - just that it was created.

That's its politically correct facade.  Given that >99.99% of its ardent supporters are openly religious fundamentalists or at the very least Christian, how could you possibly believe they don't believe it was created by god, for us?

Quote
As to the Universe being "impossibly larger than we will ever be able to explore...", just because we are incapable of traveling between stars now (actually some one with the handle Sci-Fi-Fan should know better than that!*) doesn't mean we won't be able to do so in the future.

We can travel the stars, if we survive long enough as a species and have the motive to do so.  However, by not even the wildest imaginations could we noticeably affect, colonize or visit even a dismal fraction of a fraction of the observable universe, so we once again get back to the fact that it's needlessly large.

Quote
*Multi-generational starships are within the capability of current or at very least not-too-distant-future technology. The trinary system of Alpha, Beta and Proxima Centaur is only about 4.5 light years away. Travelling only at 10% the speed of light the voyage would only take a couple of generations.

Wait; you have not the slightest sense of scale, do you?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 08:43:34 PM
That's its politically correct facade.  Given that >99.99% of its ardent supporters are openly religious fundamentalists or at the very least Christian, how could you possibly believe they don't believe it was created by god, for us?

For argument sake, let's say that one day it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is valid. How could the fact that some people believed the right thing for the wrong reason change that?

It wouldn't.

QuoteWe can travel the stars, if we survive long enough as a species and have the motive to do so.  However, by not even the wildest imaginations could we noticeably affect, colonize or visit even a dismal fraction of a fraction of the observable universe, so we once again get back to the fact that it's needlessly large.

Only if you go under the assumption that it was created soley for mankind - an assumption which is not part of Intelligent Design Theory.

QuoteWait; you have not the slightest sense of scale, do you?

Why? Just because I believe in the ability of man's ability to overcome obstacles, which to earlier ages, seemed insurmountable?

Or are you talking about the fact that if the Sun were the size of a tennis ball, Alpha Centauri would be roughly 1400 miles away?

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Dr_Watt on July 20, 2012, 09:02:17 PM
For argument sake, let's say that one day it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Intelligent Design is valid. How could the fact that some people believed the right thing for the wrong reason change that?

It wouldn't.

Firstly, the intelligent design theory you speak of is somewhat more sane than creationism, but still riddled with holes.  In attempting to explain an entity (the universe), one brings in a vastly more complex entity (a sentient being with the power and resources to create a universe) and the question of how that entity came into existence, where the resources came from, etc, etc.  It bends Occam's Razor over.

Secondly, remember the OP; if creationists get intelligent design taught in public science classrooms, they will not settle for nondenominational deism [which is still full of shit], something that several influential members have openly made clear. 

Quote
Only if you go under the assumption that it was created soley for mankind - an assumption which is not part of Intelligent Design Theory.

Now you're shifting goalposts.  You first defend the notion that such a large universe was created just for us, and now you're simply claiming that ID doesn't hold the position at all.

Quote
Why? Just because I believe in the ability of man's ability to overcome obstacles, which to earlier ages, seemed insurmountable?

Or are you talking about the fact that if the Sun were the size of a tennis ball, Alpha Centauri would be roughly 1400 miles away?

-Dr Watt

Perhaps you would notice the discussion is about the size of the universe, not our closest star.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 08:33:27 PM
I requested empirical evidence and you publicly REFUSED to do this.

In other words, you have a belief system that you openly believe in the absence of evidence.

And if you think wanting proof of a claim is silly, you clearly possess not the slightest ability for flexible thought.

First, just because you demand proof of something, is m=no more than the equivalent of a child stamping their feet and holding their breath.
Again, I don't fuckin care what in the Hell you demand.

Quote You:
Of course it went over your head, God does not work in our time frame, to God, mans entire existence is no more than a few hours to him.
Does that clear it up?

Question, what do you think created the universe?

HELLO!!! Is this thing on, have you even been paying attention?
We Created It!
But what you consider tangible, is in reality nothing but an illusion.

Quote
Nothing I said was in any manner pedantic or difficult to understand.  You simply can't understand that, if we are spiritually connected together, yet cannot feel it, cannot detect it, act in blatant contradiction to the notion and are not affected by it at all, we might as well not be connected.  You are effectively saying that the animal we see is a duck, except that it does not look, walk, quack or in any way resemble a duck.

This is a perfect example of your criminal inability to formulate a logical argument: by this line of reasoning, I cannot correctly state that, if you are hit by a truck, you may die, because you haven't ever been hit by a truck before.

Look, if this conversation is beyond your ability to keep up, then just stop posting, I will not entertain ignorance.

QuoteScience is, yes.  Living beings are highly dependent on time, and no evidence exists to suggests that any portion of us exists outside of it.

Before we existed?  So this is our 'soul', right?

Yes.

Quote
But wait; what physical process allows this whatever-you-call-it to be sentient?  Our mental processes are a result of neurological processes involving chemical reactions and the electrical impulses between neurons in our brain; how does this abstract entity think?  How would such a complex being come into existence, and how could it encompass the entire universe, given that the fastest stimuli would only travel at C?

You are trying to understand your existence from the human POV, this is an impossibility.
We purposefully made our existence ignorant of the ability to comprehend our very existence.
If you actually knew the answer, would you really see any point in living?

QuoteIt's incredible: you are obsessed with cultural superiority; believing that your subjective culture is superior to that of others, yet you believe in the relativity of facts, which are inherently objective.

Your outright refusal to provide evidence to substantiate your whim is proof of your close minded thought processes; you refuse to criticize your own beliefs through rational thought, and just assume it to be true.

LOL! You want proof that God exists?

QuoteYou're speaking mumbo jumbo here; the "entity" that is me is my brain.  When I die, my brain stops functioning and slowly decomposes.  At no point as any evidence suggested the existence of an extradimensional soul, and no rational mechanism for why it would arbitrarily exist in organisms subjectively defined as "sentient" exists.

I take it you've never died before?
I have, several times, and it's no cake walk, believe me.
But what I remember from every experience, was I didn't want to rejoin the living.

QuoteNewsflash: there is conservation of energy.  There is conservation of momentum.  There is no conservation of consciousness.  You're just making up premises that suit your convenience and presuming that the universe has to follow your imaginary fantasies.  Sort of like the child who makes up rules to a game so that he always wins.

Prove it! Prove there is no after life!

QuoteHey; you've quite clearly admitted to having no proof of your whim, so this is basically your own imaginary friend.  Feel free to make up whatever you want.

And I can say the same about your lack of understanding and belief.

QuoteWait, so "the creator" would create sea creatures that can drown...to challenge these creatures and put them through hurdles?

Wow, fish drown? Do they smell fishy to other fish?
Get serious.

QuoteDoes he/she/it/they deem it important that whales are properly challenged in life?  That would imply that animals are really important unto themselves, and therefore must have rights.

You'll have to ask the whales, I do not speak on their behalf.

QuoteYou're mixing philosophy and science here.  We can debate all day about the ignorance of the human race and exactly how much free will we possess; it is not a precedent from which to presume that an imaginary, undetectable entity encompassing all life exists.  It's one thing to believe in this symbolically; that you actually believe it literally exists is quite unsettling.

Grass hoppa, do you posses a soul?

QuoteSubstitute "the answer" for "any empirical evidence, or mechanism from which it could exist".  Ergo, the level of evidence supporting it is precisely equal to the evidence supporting the existence of monkeys on mars.

Lots of words, to simply say nothing.

QuoteOK, now I'm beginning to believe that you've really just made this entire fiasco up to mess with me, and you are trolling your own board.  Someone who claims to have an intelligence quotient of over 160, yet believes in imaginary life-encircling spiritual forces clearly isn't thinking straight.

I'm not the one trapped in a box here.

QuoteOkay, you either need clinical help, or are just a fucking moron.  Take your pick.

No son, it's your inability to understand things beyond your control.

But am I to take it, you are so arrogant/ignorant as to believe this life you lead, is all there ever was, is or ever will be?

Think about it, if you have no belief beyond what you can see, feel or think, then what is the point of developing as a person, if when it's all over, you have nothing to take forward.

Your outburst in ending with an insult speaks volumes about what little you do know, and it really pisses you off that you can't even begin to conceptualize the meaning of life.

You have a long hard path ahead of you.

Quote from: Solar on July 20, 2012, 09:19:53 PM
First, just because you demand proof of something, is m=no more than the equivalent of a child stamping their feet and holding their breath.
Again, I don't fuckin care what in the Hell you demand.

This is the most ridiculous comment you've made, ever.

You just refused to prove your assertion.  You think demanding empirical evidence that your hypothesis is true is childish?  Are all scientists children now?

Did you establish a precedent that we can make any proof we desire, without proof?

Quote
HELLO!!! Is this thing on, have you even been paying attention?
We Created It!

The irony here is delicious, given that you don't realize I was quoting you.   

Quote
But what you consider tangible, is in reality nothing but an illusion.

Because you say so, of course.  Do you think repeating the most cliched philosophical musings constitutes as a scientific theory?

QuoteLook, if this conversation is beyond your ability to keep up, then just stop posting, I will not entertain ignorance.

Dramatic irony at its finest.

Hint: when your response to an argument is to post a vague deflection-ad hominem and entirely fail to even attempt to address the actual point, you're full of shit.

Quote
Yes.You are trying to understand your existence from the human POV, this is an impossibility.

You did not understand a word I said.  You don't understand that Science is perfectly capable of understanding our own existence through logical thought, and that no amount of appeals to ignorance will change the facts.

Your response to every objection I bring up is "I can't possibly know the answer...but it still must be true!

You see, I know that Obama really is the messiah, sent down by the Almighty to save us from the satanist republicans.  Don't ask me for proof; I'll just laugh at you and call you a child.   

Quote
We purposefully made our existence ignorant of the ability to comprehend our very existence.

Because you say so. 

Your logic is that we are all a part of this magical entity that cannot be perceived, cannot be detected, does not tangibly affect us and whose existence of I present no proof...but if you don't believe in it, you're ignorant!

QuoteIf you actually knew the answer, would you really see any point in living?

How is this relevant to whether or not it is real?

Quote
LOL! You want proof that God exists?

Yep.  When we apply for a driver's license, we need proof of lawful residence.  When a lawyer makes a claim in a case, proof is typically asked for.  When I tell you that magical monkeys live on mars, you will require proof.  God is no exception.  That everybody adamantly refuses to actually provide proof of his existence is simply because none exists.

QuoteI take it you've never died before?
I have, several times, and it's no cake walk, believe me.

Correct.  And there is no afterlife, and there is no magical oneness with reality.  Deal with it.

Quote
But what I remember from every experience, was I didn't want to rejoin the living.

Then why are you here?

QuoteProve it! Prove there is no after life!

Burden of proof fallacy.

QuoteAnd I can say the same about your lack of understanding and belief.

Lack of understanding?  You believe that fishes are the only sea creatures!

Lack of belief?  Sure; "belief", ie faith here, is the willful suspension of disbelief to believe in something without evidence.  Does this sound logical to you?

QuoteWow, fish drown? Do they smell fishy to other fish?
Get serious.

Clearly, whales are fish. 

QuoteYou'll have to ask the whales, I do not speak on their behalf.

You see, a scientist would actually use methods from which to derive an answer, using a logical method of analysis and experimentation.  You just assume that you cannot know, so you make up a bullshit story to tell of it.

Quote
Grass hoppa, do you posses a soul?

Red herring.

Quote
Lots of words, to simply say nothing.

Given that my response made an argument and your response fails to even attempt to address it, I win by default.

Quote
I'm not the one trapped in a box here.

Do you talk with your spirits for advice?

Quote
No son, it's your inability to understand things beyond your control.

By understand, do you mean figure out through deduction and experimentation, or make up a tale and refuse to substantiate it?

Quote
But am I to take it, you are so arrogant/ignorant as to believe this life you lead, is all there ever was, is or ever will be?

Arrogant?  Precisely the opposite is what believing that this is the only life you've got does; it gives humility, rather than making up a fairy tale to keep away the dark.

Ignorant?  I'm not the one who thinks all sea creatures are fish.   

Quote
Think about it, if you have no belief beyond what you can see, feel or think, then what is the point of developing as a person, if when it's all over, you have nothing to take forward.

I have moral beliefs.  I have standards; these are all abstract, subjective values.  I do not use faith to explain factual phenomena, any more than you would use faith to elect a leader.

Quote
Your outburst in ending with an insult speaks volumes about what little you do know, and it really pisses you off that you can't even begin to conceptualize the meaning of life.

Hey; I've refrained from insulting you until you brought out the guns yourself.  Even now, I only present the possibility that you are a moron.

Quote
You have a long hard path ahead of you.

You know, I'm doing this all with the assumption that you're just trolling around with me; the joke is still on you, given that you fail to realize that your made-up fantasy is hardly more ridiculous than creationism at all.

As we have no idea what existed before the Big Bang arguing for, or against, Intelligent Design - as a first cause - makes no logical sense.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 09:07:26 PM
Firstly, the intelligent design theory you speak of is somewhat more sane than creationism, but still riddled with holes.  In attempting to explain an entity (the universe), one brings in a vastly more complex entity (a sentient being with the power and resources to create a universe) and the question of how that entity came into existence, where the resources came from, etc, etc.  It bends Occam's Razor over.

Intelligent Design is the epitome of Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation (that which makes the fewest assumptions) is most likely.

Look at all of the assumptions which need to be believed to support the so-called Big Bang Theory - all the mass of the universe was collected into a single ball the size of a small sun (I'm exaggerating for effect here). No one knows where all of this mass came from in the first place, nor can they explain why or how it coalesced into a single sphere. Then, all of a sudden through a process no one really understands, that ball exploded!

Assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions!

Intelligent Design, however, makes only one real assumption. It assumes that some "being" (for lack of a better term) created the Universe - for its own purpose.

QuoteSecondly, remember the OP; if creationists get intelligent design taught in public science classrooms, they will not settle for nondenominational deism [which is still full of shit], something that several influential members have openly made clear.

And this disturbs you?

The fact that you children (if you have any) might be taught things in school which undermine the belief system you, as a parent, have been trying to instill in them since they were born, bothers you?

Welcome to my world!   

QuoteNow you're shifting goalposts.  You first defend the notion that such a large universe was created just for us...

I did nothing of the sort. All I did was point out that just because someone believes in something for the wrong reason, doesn't make what they believe in any less valid.

Quote...and now you're simply claiming that ID doesn't hold the position at all.

You, yourself said admitted as much! That's its politically correct facade. You just go on to say that those rascally Christians (strange, you never mention Muslims!) will try to use it as a toe hold to convert our impressionable youths to become tithes paying Born Again Christians!

QuotePerhaps you would notice the discussion is about the size of the universe, not our closest star.

Oh, so I was right... You were talking out your ass about .

-Dr Watt