Butterflys and Gods - Page 3

Tao_Equus · 11-06-2008, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0de

@ Tao

This has nothing to do with your original argument. Therefore, it is irrelevant.
As for the evidence for God: Remember this thread? Proof of God

Yes it has everything to do with it, no matter how much you wish it did not. And yes I remember very well your opening thread here in which you try to assert that countless thousands of scientists are dumber than you.

tao

c0de · 11-06-2008, 05:16 PM

@ Tao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Yes it has everything to do with it,

Nope. Sorry. It doesn't.

Quote:

And yes I remember very well your opening thread here in which you try to assert that countless thousands of scientists are dumber than you.

Do you also remember your failed attempts to disprove the argument?

Tao_Equus · 11-06-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0de

Do you also remember your failed attempts to disprove the argument?

No. I only remember your crass contradictions and your failure to disclose at the outset that you were yet another *yawn* muslim trying to say Muhammad knew physics better than modern science.

tao

c0de · 11-06-2008, 05:38 PM

@ Tao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

No. I only remember your crass contradictions and your failure to disclose at the outset that you were yet another *yawn* muslim trying to say Muhammad knew physics better than modern science.

You failed there, just like you did here:

Quote:

Post #22

You said: God can't do the math

We said: Since God created math, we're sure he can handle it.

Tao_Equus · 11-06-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0de

@ Tao

You failed there, just like you did here:

No I have never failed in my challenge to you to prove there is any god. Since you cannot prove there is a god invoking one is meaningless. Where as the maths work. They are OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE and REPEATABLE. All you have is superstition. And, of course, your undiminished ego.

tao

c0de · 11-06-2008, 07:04 PM

@ Tao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

No I have never failed in my challenge to you to prove there is any god.

I thought you were trying to prove that there isnt.

Quote:

Since you cannot prove there is a god invoking one is meaningless.

But we did not invoke God. You did. You made your entire argument dependent on God when you assumed that He would not be able to do the math required to sustain the universe. We merely pointed out that such an argument is self-contradictory as an Infinite Being would be able to handle any calculation, no matter how "chaotic" it might seem to you. You tried to show that these calculations are unmeasurable. But you failed to realize it is only unmeasurable for man. Not for God.

Quote:

And, of course, your undiminished ego.

I doubt anyone on this forum can compete in that department with you Tao.

Tao_Equus · 11-06-2008, 07:19 PM

[quote=c0de;169317]

@ Tao

Quote:

I thought you were trying to prove that there isnt.

But we did not invoke God. You did. You made your entire argument dependent on God when you assumed that He would not be able to do the math required to sustain the universe. We merely pointed out that such an argument is self-contradictory as an Infinite Being would be able to handle any calculation, no matter how "chaotic" it might seem to you. You tried to show that these calculations are unmeasurable. But you failed to realize it is only unmeasurable for man. Not for God.

Attempting to play with my words and subvert them to your own purpose is not only shallow it is underhand. But then again...as it is brainwashed into the muslim apologist I will forgive you. But you really should learn not to try and put words in peoples mouths, one day you will get a smack in the mouth for it.

Quote:

I doubt anyone on this forum can compete in that department with you Tao.

I have said before, I know I am a self-opinionated to55er, but I have the advantage over you that I know it. That is the difference in our ego's. The other advantage I have over you is I have never been indoctrinated to hold preposterous superstitions

tao

c0de · 11-06-2008, 07:29 PM

@ Tao

Quote:

That is the difference in our ego's. The other advantage I have over you is I have never been indoctrinated to hold preposterous superstitions

No, your more into holding preposterous suppositions. Like this one: 'God can't handle doing the math'

Quote:

I have said before, I know I am a self-opinionated to55er, but I have the advantage over you that I know it.

The problem is that only you know it.

Quote:

But you really should learn not to try and put words in peoples mouths, one day you will get a smack in the mouth for it.

Moving on to physical threats now are we? Well old man, I'd be careful about dishing out such challenges... You wouldn't want to break a hip.

Quote:

Attempting to play with my words and subvert them to your own purpose is not only shallow it is underhand.

Was just havin some fun is all.

Tao_Equus · 11-06-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0de

No, your more into holding preposterous suppositions. Like this one: 'God can't handle doing the math'

No my suppositions are based on observable data. That gives them 'infinitely' more credibility than the mere invocation of a jumped up tooth fairy.

Quote:

Moving on to physical threats now are we? Well old man, I'd be careful about dishing out such challenges... You wouldn't want to break a hip.

my ohh my!! so you are paranoid too!! Well do not worry poor chap, it was merely a bit of friendly advice.

Quote:

Was just havin some fun is all.

And you think I take you seriously? !!!

tao

c0de · 11-06-2008, 07:50 PM

@ Tao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

No my suppositions are based on observable data.

You mean like this one: 'God can't handle doing the math'

Tao_Equus · 11-06-2008, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0de

@ Tao

You mean like this one: 'God can't handle doing the math'

Take it in the context of the thread OP and it makes perfect sense. You want to latch onto something and twist it into something it is not, thats not my problem. Its yours.

tao

c0de · 11-06-2008, 07:58 PM

@ Tao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Take it in the context of the thread OP and it makes perfect sense. You want to latch onto something and twist it into something it is not, thats not my problem. Its yours.

tao

First of all, I wasn't the only one who pointed this out.
Second of all, it very much is your problem. Because
its a contradiction in your theory.

Tao_Equus · 11-06-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0de

@ Tao

First of all, I wasn't the only one who pointed this out.
Second of all, it very much is your problem. Because
its a contradiction in your theory.

*sighs* Ok I will try once more for you. With the observable size of space and the fact that no two molecules in its vastness are identical, and taking into account the chaos of fundamental unpredictability if a God did exist it would have to not only have created and fashioned every single nano-particle but determined its position and influence, and the whole web of influences that would create, on every other nano-particle in the universe. Not for one instant, but for all of time. So it is preposterous to believe that any sentient creature would (a) create such a poor design and (b) do it so a bunch of no hoper zealots on some little planet could whip themselves into a frenzy of belief in his 'infinite wisdom'. Now if that is not simple enough for you then you are going to have to go to special needs class.

tao

c0de · 11-06-2008, 08:17 PM

@ Tao

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

if a God did exist it would have to not only have created and fashioned every single nano-particle but determined its position and influence, and the whole web of influences that would create, on every other nano-particle in the universe. Not for one instant, but for all of time.

Yes... Amazing isn't it?

Quote:

So it is preposterous to believe that any sentient creature would (a) create such a poor design

This is where your argument fails. This is not a "poor design".
It is a design unfathomable by you, or any other human being.
Just because you can't understand it, does not mean God can not.

You also shifted your argument to avoid making the same mistake,
Your original argument said that God could not calculate this design Himself.
But your new approach just makes the same mistake again, albeit in a different form.

Tao_Equus · 11-06-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by c0de

@ Tao

Yes... Amazing isn't it?

This is where your argument fails. This is not a "poor design".
It is a design unfathomable by you, or any other human being.
Just because you can't understand it, does not mean God can not.

You also shifted your argument to avoid making the same mistake,
Your original argument said that God could not calculate this design Himself.
But your new approach just makes the same mistake again, albeit in a different form.

There is no mistake in my logic. Where as you do not use logic at all but INVENT a god for which there is ZERO evidence. Regardless of which, I am tired of humouring you.

Good bye.

tao