Prove that God doesn't exist.

[numinus]

Practically everything I have posted, that's all. "Over-estimated"? Hmmm, not based on your performance so far.

Of course you can say that. It just wouldn't be based on any fact nor logic.

"MMA" skills? Manly Murder, Maundering Misanthrope, Miserable Masticator, Moribund Meglomanic, Magical Motivator?

MMA, not MM.

Why trannies but not gays?

That's brilliant.

Like I'd check first, eh?

Or a gay being beaten looks so much different from anyone else getting beaten.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Statues? Marital laws are STATUTES. If you want to change it, you either demonstrate that it is unconstitutional -- that is, it renders a fundamental right defective, or you can have it ammended by a plebiscite. Since you can't win in a plebiscite, you need to demonstrate that it is unconsititutional. Aren't you getting dizzy spinning around like that?

We are working on that, but it's a slow process, the courts in California admitted that the original statue was un-Constitutional according to California's Constitution. When the courts overruled the law and let gay people have equal rights tens of thousands of them married, but now with the Prop 8 the ban has been reinstated by popular vote--and back to the courts it goes. Eventually the US Supreme Court will have to make the final judgment.

Now that's a travesty of justice. What has this got to do with gay marriages, anyway. Will an ammendment to a statute prevent murder?

No, but it will be one more step towards ending the legitimacy of the homophobia that is currently "winked at" in most of the country. Civil rights laws went along way towards ending the official climate of suppression towards black people. It didn't end the lynchings but it did bring to bear the official weight of the law on people who committed the crime.

What? I am arguing the existence of god using ontology. Humanae vitae, like any church teaching, is not entirely dependent on ontolgy.

I know you think you did really well with your logical proof, but I gotta tell ya' I thought it was a semantic jumble. A verbal logical proof doesn't prove an anthropomorphic god. It proves the possiblity of a first cause, but what if there were no first cause? Just because we can't imagine or conceive such a thing doesn't prove that it's not so. It's like plotting a curve from one point, no matter how nice that point is it doesn't allow you to plot the curve.

Sigh.

It always makes me happy to see you "sigh", it means that I'm getting through to you.

No. You got the definition of church wrong. It is no wonder you get the definition of religion wrong as well.

Just because my definition doesn't match yours doesn't make mine wrong.

Which is perhaps the reason why you cannot understand something that is loudly said.

I'm ignoring you with dignity.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

How could he? He's dead.

Is it entirely possible that the sermon you heard jp2 give is a delusion?

No, I was thinking of the current Pope, they all look the same to me--little men in big hats (kinda like George Bush in that way, ol' George is all hat and no cattle).

 

[Segep]

I've managed to stay out of this thread the whole time I've been here. Where is the option for "I don't know"? Why must it be so black and white?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Popes are men in dresses wearing hats that are symbolic penises.

Numinus will do anything but address the following points.

1) You cannot use the causation argument to prove there is a creator.

2) Even if you could you cannot make any justified statements about the character of that creator

3) Even if you could then it would be infinitely more likely that the creator was a nasty piece of work.

4) Even though numnuts keeps banging on about having a degree in engineering he can't restrict his extraordinarily dull verbiage to the point.

5) Even if he could it would still not address the points made above because the conclusion he desperately wants is unsupportable by fact and or logic.

As a footnote I will just add that when I was at University every one used to mock the engineering students for being dull.

Anyone could get an engineering degree numnuts.

Even you could.

If you learn a bit of logic and understand how when it is applied to true premisses true conclusions will ensue then you might get through.

You could probabaly even get through by plagiarising from the internet which you seem to be reasonably adept at.

And you also seem quite skilled at engineering 'facts' and 'logical steps' too so I reckon you are probably ready to start a course on engieering and then you might be able to become a real one instead of the fantasy one you are at present.

But you should give up on the god stuff - it makes you sound like you are over-extending yourself.

 

[Segep]

Anyone could get an engineering degree numnuts.

Here I have to disagree with you. The required math alone would weed out nearly everyone (at least Westerners).

But a head for math and spatial relations does not itself guarantee success in solving problems or understanding human motivations. Engineers and their single-mindedness are prone to gross errors in logic when they are wedded to false assumptions.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

What is for certain is if numnuts could get an angineering degree then anyone could.

To be fair what looks to be the truth is that he is a failed engineer who is living his fantasy out on this board.

 

[Lagboltz]

Here I have to disagree with you. The required math alone would weed out nearly everyone (at least Westerners).

But a head for math and spatial relations does not itself guarantee success in solving problems or understanding human motivations. Engineers and their single-mindedness are prone to gross errors in logic when they are wedded to false assumptions.

Getting an engineering degree requires a certain amount of intelligence and perseverance, but in my experience many engineers often lack the wisdom to know how to apply their knowledge. Attempting to apply that knowledge in proving the existence of god is of course futile. Almost all of the engineers I managed could see the "trees" in great detail, but could not see the "forest". We are definitely seeing that here with numnuts.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You might even say that he is the engineer of his own downfall

 

[Dr.Who]

You might even say that he is the engineer of his own downfall

Naww, that would imply free will.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

No it wouldn't.

He could be doing it as part of his programming

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

As it is New Year's Eve I thought I would entertain you with an impression.

See if you can guess who this is.

E=MC sq

Therefore god is an engineering failure with serious insecurity issues

 

[Lagboltz]

Here is an engineering joke that also involves god.
Three men were sentenced to death by guillotine: a priest, a lawyer, and an engineer.

The priest wanted to lay upward to face his maker during his death. He fervently prayed.
The blade came down and stopped one foot short of his neck. He was set free because of a law about executing twice.

The lawyer decided to do the same, and he fervently prayed. Despite his sins, the blade stopped one foot short of his neck too. He was also set free.

The engineer decided to do the same, but he saw a loose nail that was stopping the blade. Before the blade was dropped he yelled, "Stop!! I see the problem. I think I can fix it.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

No wonder they struggle with the fact of evolution

 

[bododie]

I contend that the only people who struggle with evolution are the idiots who taught you about religion. That wouldn't be God. It would be someone much closer to home.