How does God do anything?

[Learner]

But here’s the point. This discussion, about how things interact, has had all kinds of input from the non-god side. We’ve provided opinions, in good faith, of how the interactions could have happened.

You… haven’t.

That's not quite right. Drew has provided his imput, even if you don't agree with it.

He has asserted that Goddidit is an answer. Without providing any evidence to support this assertion. Claims made without supporting evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But you have to tell us what was said, or give us an example of the transcript. If I may use Tigers post why:

Do you have any figures regarding the amount/type of matter & energy (and time if) required for us to see the emergence of this sentience? I have considered that sentience is an emergent property of matter and energy. Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it. Do you have a link to a study or experiment? ( in this case the video)

How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit? Go on, I'm waiting. Another question you will not answer in any meaningful way.

And, you need to learn the fuck about logical fallacies. Your ignorance, and your continued refusal to understand how arguments from ignorance work was mildly amusing in the beginning, but it has overstayed its welcome. If you don't understand what the fuck people are talking about, maybe its time to shut the fuck up. Or do your fucking homework.

How lovely. So over confident I won't answer. You are going to look a little foolish for your insistent false claims, as per usual.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think he used the term quite adequately for his argument,

Of corse you do, but you swallow a lot of piddle-poop arguments on the basis of liking their conclusions, whether you understand them or not.

not that you need to agree with him that he was correct with his viewpoint. Which video did you see?

You offer him up in support of finding 'gaps' in scientific knowledge as a problem for the science. This is a misunderstanding of basic science. Gaps is how science works.

Whether I understand them or not... yep, the normal response as usual. Could you give me some critique on the other "something of the gaps" also mentioned?

What, "materialism of the gaps..?"
An unattributed quote anecdote taken out of context and thrown out as significant?

"..of the gaps" only has meaning in finding faults in the opposition's position to support your own. Whatever the fuck 'materialism of the gaps' is meant to convey, it's a logical fallacy at best.

 

[atrib]

But here’s the point. This discussion, about how things interact, has had all kinds of input from the non-god side. We’ve provided opinions, in good faith, of how the interactions could have happened.

You… haven’t.

That's not quite right. Drew has provided his imput, even if you don't agree with it.

He has asserted that Goddidit is an answer. Without providing any evidence to support this assertion. Claims made without supporting evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But you have to tell us what was said, or give us an example of the transcript. If I may use Tigers post why:

Do you have any figures regarding the amount/type of matter & energy (and time if) required for us to see the emergence of this sentience? I have considered that sentience is an emergent property of matter and energy. Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it. Do you have a link to a study or experiment? ( in this case the video)

How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit? Go on, I'm waiting. Another question you will not answer in any meaningful way.

And, you need to learn the fuck about logical fallacies. Your ignorance, and your continued refusal to understand how arguments from ignorance work was mildly amusing in the beginning, but it has overstayed its welcome. If you don't understand what the fuck people are talking about, maybe its time to shut the fuck up. Or do your fucking homework.

How lovely. So over confident I won't answer. You are going to look a little foolish for your insistent false claims, as usual.

You didn't answer. Nothing in your post addresses my question: How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit?

 

[Learner]

So which videos did you fellows watch of Craigs?



No probs Atrib,I don't want to respond to that, as I can see you are quie an emotional person. I hope you can be gracious like the other posters and see through my articulation short falls. I don't want to keep coming back wasting time on doing 'defending myself posts.' IOW I'll ignore your insults.

EDIT: Just had a final peek before bed, but noticed you edited your post, so the above paragraph is not going to be the correct response to the edited line "you didn't answer"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Whoooooooosh!

 

[Keith&Co.]

How lovely. So over confident I won't answer. You are going to look a little foolish for your insistent false claims, as per usual.

Looks like the term you want, here, is "confident."

 

[atrib]

So which videos did you fellows watch of Craigs?

Craig's not here. Why don't you summarize the main argument here so we can discuss it? Is he talking about the Kalaam Cosmological Argument or some other crap? Post his argument here and I will explain why he is wrong. (That assumes that you can actually understand what Craig is saying, which is not a given based on past experience.)

Tiger implied that because we don't understand how consciousness arises we should believe Goddidit. That is an argument from ignorance. I thought that is what his brain stuff was about. I have actually responded to that post - its on page 4. Feel free to correct me if I was wrong.

 

[atrib]

Whoooooooosh!

I don't think he even understands what the topic of discussion is. Just that he is on the side of the Goddidit team.

 

[Learner]

Great bit or reasoning, some what hypocritical. So Criags not here? Who or which toher authors or scientists that have been quoted, has ever been here? How much was summarized & provided. that came into discussion? Don't look foolish especially from someone who has little understanding, as you often say of me.

EDIT:

I'm going to bed now, Ill have to leave those questions maybe for tomorrow, been wasting time on these previous posts. I WILL answer them - you have witnesses reading the thread ( witnesses is very important biblically) if I don't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Great bit or reasoning, some what hypocritical.

Huh?
What was?
And hypocritical because....?

 

[atrib]

So which videos did you fellows watch of Craigs?



No probs Atrib,I don't want to respond to that, as I can see you are quie an emotional person. I hope you can be gracious like the other posters and see through my articulation short falls. I don't want to keep coming back wasting time on doing 'defending myself posts.' IOW I'll ignore your insults.

You won't answer - just like I said you would. Just like Rhea and Keith said you would.

I was not insulting you. I use the word fuck as an exclamation, to emphasize some point I am trying to make. In your case, I usually use the word fuck to express how exasperated I am with your passive-aggressive nonsense and your non-answers. This is not a place to preach - this is a place to discuss ideas.

 

[atrib]

Great bit or reasoning, some what hypocritical. So Criags not here? Who or which toher authors or scientists that have been quoted, has ever been here? How much was summarized & provided. that came into discussion? Don't look foolish especially from someone who has little understanding, as you often say of me.

I am saying that in order to have a discussion about Craig's argument, you need to state the argument first.

EDIT:

I'm going to bed now, Ill have to leave those questions maybe for tomorrow, been wasting time on these previous posts. I WILL answer them - you have witnesses reading the thread ( witnesses is very important biblically) if I don't.

I am not holding my breath - I don't believe you will do anything like that. Past behavior is usually a good predictor for future performance when it comes to human behavior, and based on your past behavior I don't think you will. Moreover, I don't believe you understand what Craig is arguing. Prove me wrong - provide a summary of his argument so I can explain why it is wrong.

 

[Learner]

I made a drink and just popped in to make a final adjusment to post #204

Ill leave it for later because you deserve the wait.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You'd think someone could tell the difference between an insult and a fucking intensity modifier. You'd really fucking think so, huh?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How lovely. So over confident I won't answer. You are going to look a little foolish for your insistent false claims, as usual.

You didn't answer. Nothing in your post addresses my question: How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit?

I'm uncertain why you are expecting anything different from Learner. They play lots of games, and that's about it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Because the theists can just invoke 'goddidit' and 'it's a mystery' and are done.

Atheists and naturalists invoke 'Naturedidit' and are done.

Odd, because the science books keep updating with time. Only the Holy Books stay constant. Atheists aren't done, they just extrapolate what wasn't known then and known now to a reasonable conclusion.

Theists quote their static, all knowing Holy Books. Scientists keep looking.

That's there go to explanation of how we found ourselves in a universe that didn't intend our existence...

This is a misunderstanding. The universe never intended us not to exist... we are the universe becoming sentient. This is a massive irony, that the particles spread from dead stars have congealed into organic molecules... and then into living creatures. Given enough time, creatures that can think, and even know of their own existence. We are the universe becoming 'all knowing'. We are the literal embodiment of the whole god concept. Sentience from mere molecules.

But apparently that isn't a big enough deal for some.

or even the existence of the universe itself for that matter. Our existence according to naturalists is an extremely fortuitous act of serendipity.

Our existence is a statistical likelihood given enough time. The universe's existence? Well, we have no idea yet on that one.

 

[Bomb#20]

Theists never consider sentience as an emergent property of matter and energy ...

Do you have any figures regarding the amount/type of matter & energy (and time if) required for us to see the emergence of this sentience? I have considered that sentience is an emergent property of matter and energy. Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it. Do you have a link to a study or experiment?

Sure. Constructing and connecting the required neurons for sentience to emerge takes about 2000 calories of chemical energy per day, contained in matter inputs including about 46 grams of protein, 44 grams of fat and 225 grams of carbohydrates per day, for nine months. This experiment has been repeated and observed about a hundred billion times.

 

[Learner]

You'd think someone could tell the difference between an insult and a fucking intensity modifier. You'd really fucking think so, huh?

Did you not think then to point or quote which post I was refering to? So that people could see what you were ranting about?


Oh dear, but you can't now, because Atrib's Post# 203 has been edited! Hence why I edit my post# 204. No evidence for you it seems, which funny enough would have been evidence for me too. Your empty statement is void, I will say.

Applying again. a line from Tigers post in the context that I previously intended. And NO Atrib I didn't quote Tigers post previously to say goddit!

Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it.

Mr. Higgins please take note of the games, of our two friends.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Constructing and connecting the required neurons for sentience to emerge takes about 2000 calories of chemical energy per day, contained in matter inputs including about 46 grams of protein, 44 grams of fat and 225 grams of carbohydrates per day, for nine months. This experiment has been repeated and observed about a hundred billion times.

Some awesome complex chemistry. One doesn't need religious woo to appreciate the fact either. Actually, religious woo dumbs it down by making it into a melodramatic, fairy-tale soap opera, although I'm certain those ancestor brains were only expressing the same scientific intuition and curiosity we do today when they invented their magic creatures.

And how different would our courts be today if all it took to gain favor was to not admit to demonstrated scientific fact? We'd be back to "my god is better than your god."

 

[Keith&Co.]

You'd think someone could tell the difference between an insult and a fucking intensity modifier. You'd really fucking think so, huh?

Did you not think then to point or quote which post I was refering to? So that people could see what you were ranting about?

No, i don't always draw the lines between smart ass remarks and their inspiraton. Let the reader decide what the quip is about, like Tarot.

I do note, however, that despite your assurances to answer questions, you come all the way back here to nitpick over anything, anything at all, except the answers you're still not providing.