If God were GOOD we'd all have a "cry uncle" ability

To refute the goodness of God, and most of John’s threads.

I’m just gonna go ahead and say it.

I’ve been reading your threads a bit here and there and from what I can see…you’re not very good at forming and expressing complete sets of thoughts from premise to conclusion. Your writing is disjointed, and you tend to show more of your emotional state, or your intention, than you do any actual reasoning.

Please…make no mistake. I am not a theist. I just need you to know that I enjoy arguing with both sides of any debate, and my attempts to do so with your posts have been impossible, because you write like a drunkard and your posts don’t even really make sense.

Maybe I"m wrong.

Tell me about this thread.

What the hell are you even saying?

I mean do you believe that your thread here belongs under the heading of philosophy?

All of Johns proofs for God go under philosophy, so my disproofs of God will as well. You can take it up with the mods. I haven’t chain posted this OP, I just wanted to make the point. I don’t know how this sounds like the incoherent ramblings of a drunkard… for the above post people actually have exchanges with me, and I’ve never heard that accusation before.

Dude who is John? Why are you posting a thread in philosophy with an OP of just 1 poorly structured sentence and which doesn’t make any argument, or statement, or anything of the sort?

I’m not trying to be a dick or anything but that’s what you just did.

This is mundane babble at best. Prove me wrong.

In fact i will chain post here… I bet John Bannon doesn’t think my posts are the incoherent writings of a drunkard, and this post is against his onslaught of proofs on this board.

This John…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187445

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187058

Those are just a couple… I figured you were a regular reader sorry.

Also from John…

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187326

I figured anyone reading these couple pages would know… so I just assumed everyone knew who I meant. As these threads kick back into the dustbin of ILP… the page ratio will still be the same, my mistake I guess.

Well, either way…as a philosopher I can tell you this. Arguing about religion, whether it’s theism or atheism, is just kind of dumb. Neither side can prove what they either claim, or what is entailed by their lack of belief. It’s all a bunch of rhetorical posturing by people who don’t really know either way. There’s maybe 5 or 6 different angles that each side can use to try and “prove” that there is or isn’t a god, and all of them are tired, played out, and full of holes on both sides of the debate.

Talking about it at all is kind of stupid. I mean it’s like debating what color is best. There’s just not an answer to be had in the rational world.

Most people who study philosophy actually get past all this in about a year. Then you move onto more complex things, and to solvable problems. To stay on the treadmill of religious debate indefinitely is to never remove the training wheels from your bike.

Who gives a shit if there’s a god or not really? Of those people…who has certainty? Who’s minds can be changed?

Probably best to just stand back and let the idiots devour one another with fallacies, then move on to something of consequence in the world to which you can apply your intelligence to make things better for yourself.

I mean I’ve been waiting for years for someone to explain the problem of first cause such that we arrive at certainty about the origin of what we know as existence. The god people just say, “there was nothing except god and then he made everything”. That doesn’t make sense. Then the pseudoscience crowd pops in and says, “there’s no god it was all a big bang” and that doesn’t make sense either.

There’s an underlying philosophical problem in trying to ascertain the beginning of the universe. It’s a complex matter, and to date…no one has synthesized the two most commonly given accounts of it such that we can know in any way similar to what we mean when we conventionally say, “know”.

I disagree. You should probably read those threads before you make such claims, they are actually very devastating for the creationist view.

Try this thread for one:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187618

Try this one for two:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=187507

And for three… if you bothered to read Johns threads, you’d know there cannot be an omniscient omnipotent creator, and even if we assume Johns take that there are uncreated beings, John cannot prove that there aren’t an infinite number of them. I went through this very carefully in those threads. I kept proving that there are laws that a creator cannot make, thus, it doesn’t matter how many creators there are, they cannot undo each others work even if they were working against each other. But you sit and believe that this cannot be proven all you want if it makes you feel better.

See I don’t have to sort through all your details, because I already have a complete understanding of the actual state of the debate on both sides as it is, and has been since it all started.

The fact is, whether or not there’s a god doesn’t matter at all here. It’s just not necessarily true that we’d have some “cry uncle” ability.

I mean xtians are just gonna give you the whole, “mysterious ways” and “he’s above us and we can’t understand”.

And the fact is that you haven’t refuted any of those by claiming that your understanding of good is the same as the alleged god’s.

This is very pedestrian stuff man.

Devastating to creationism?

That’s a pretty bold claim. I like how you used, “devastating” there to give it the little extra kick that it needs since it lacks substantive refutation of creationism.

I mean if you really wanna prove that god didn’t create the universe, then you have to give an account of what did, and it has to be evidentiary and complete. You’re gonna have to have some observations, and some controlled variables, and some deductive reasoning from things you’ve seen and then processed through a uniform method.

You have to know that those things are impossible with this particular object of inquiry right?

If you don’t know that’s impossible, then you’re going to be stuck sitting there not knowing what certainty is or how knowledge works…asserting things that can’t be proven to try and win a debate wherein there is no truth to be found.

I mean you can’t just show what you can show, and then make the leap either. Like, “oh well here’s some observable phenomena” I believe that their existence violates one definition of god,(the classic 3 omni one). Therefore, god did not create the universe.

I mean any way you look at it, that’s just poor reasoning. I’m not claiming that the opposite of what you believe is true. I’m just pointing out that the reasoning is poor, and it’s always going to be, and that’s what makes debating shit like this pointless.

mr. reasonable, you should read those threads and stop talking about how this is kindergarten debate. I invented 7 disproofs for God on these boards that have never been invented before, and we spend a lot of time talking about the universe, how it came to be and its construction. Instead of accusing me of being an idiot and you know it all, why don’t you read the 6 links I just gave you and then come back.

It’s the same as saying, “oh the rain evaporates and then falls on trees that grow, therefore god must have intelligently designed everything when he created it”.

I mean you see how the same function is happening in each instance of these 2 examples?

You’re making claims that you can’t prove, and you’re jumping from evidence of one thing, and saying that it proves another thing.

Bad bad bad man. You gotta get your mind wrapped around something that matters in the world and stop being pinned down by this passion you have that’s forcing you away from reasoning properly.

And dude…you did not invent any new argument in the area of religious discourse. You may think that you did, but I’d bet anything I’ve got that all you really did was re-frame one of the old problems into some new language with maybe a little twist here or there. But…that little twist can have no impact on the debate, because it can’t be substantive, because all the substantive parts of the whole matter are old as hell. There is nothing new in the world of debating religion. To think that there is is foolish.

Welcome to being a fool them mr. reasonable. Fine don’t read the threads.

Look, I can tell that your feeling are getting hurt, so I’ll leave you alone. But you will eventually understand the futility of what you’re doing, and you’ll realize how much time you wasted. Over time, you might begin to understand the fundamentals of philosophy rather than just parrot your cliches, and when you do, I’d like for you to remember what I’ve told you here in this thread.

mr reasonable, now you’re just being an ass… I probably have the highest spatial IQ on earth. I gave you my advice, so you could falsify your claims, but apparently, you know everything.

I’ll take the IQ challenge with anyone. But I’d rather see you explain with certainty the origin of the universe lol.

Also, I don’t claim to know everything. I just claim to know everything about what happens in debates about theism vs atheism. I mean it’s about as established a set of discourse as you’ll find anywhere. To think you’ve come up with something new shows a combination of ignorance and arrogance. There’s nothing in those links that’s any different than what people have been saying for a century. The fact that you think there is tells me that you don’t know as much as you think you do.