Quote from: BADecker on February 20, 2015, 05:09:59 PM

Quote from: the joint on February 20, 2015, 01:30:34 PM

Quote from: nextgencoin on February 19, 2015, 04:46:44 PM

Quote from: the joint on February 19, 2015, 02:59:28 PM

Quote from: nextgencoin on February 19, 2015, 07:46:56 AM

Quote from: organofcorti on February 19, 2015, 03:06:45 AM

Quote from: the joint on February 19, 2015, 02:55:37 AM

There's simply not enough information to soundly conclude that God must necessarily exist because you likened the Universe to a watch. Plausible? Sure. Sound? No. That's about as clear as it gets.

I'm not even sure it's plausible. Invoking a god because of a lack of either imagination or knowledge (or both) is the ultimate deus ex machina - an difficult problem solved by a being that can solve any problem.

To me this is just intellectual laziness. It's just too easy to say "well I don't understand, so it must be caused by a god of some sort".

difficult != impossible

Well I simply had an opinion based on what I personally believe I didn't ask anyone to changs their view for me. Now I'm being challenged because someone thinks they KNOW 100% even though they are limited in knowledge based on their brain that they had no part in designing.

So please show me your 100% fact there is no God that simply the whole world can say ah ok yo're right there is no God. You atheists are a bunch of pseudo intellectuals wearing long black coats and matrix glasses thinking the whole world doesent get what they get. If you can't be intellectally honest enough to accept being an atheist needs as much faith as believing in God, agnostics I think are worth having a conversation with Atheists have nothing but other people to point at and say see they think this, it must be true. Intelletually moronic.

Logic is axiomatically a predicate for truth. Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (where the root word of 'rational' is 'ratio'). In other words, any true statement is simply a sound description of some relationship or characteristic thereof. It's a mistake to assume that we can't "KNOW 100%," as you suggest, because we didn't design our brain. It is logical that truth only exists inasmuch as sound, rational expression. Talking about "truth" outside of a logical perspective takes you down an irrelevant path.

Furthermore, your challenge to him to "please show [you his] 100% fact there is no God" is dubious since that wasn't his assertion. The assertion seems to be that the conclusion that God must necessarily exist because you decided to arbitrarily set the Universe as analogous to a watch is a non-sequitur. That is, the conclusion isn't that God doesn't exist based upon your premise, but simply that we can't conclude that God exists. There's a huge difference. And, he's also correct (excluding his comments about plausibility).

Throughout your post, I'd also like to point out your inherent contradiction in that you assert that people "[can't] KNOW 100%" because of the physical limitations of the brain, but then you rely upon your own use of logic which you seem to be asserting with absolute, 100% confidence. For example, saying that "[people can't] know 100%" is the same as saying "I know 100% that people can't know 100%." For, if you're not making that statement, then you must concede that it's essentially meaningless to consider anything you're stating as fact of any kind.

I know a couple of people that talk like you like they just finished their Degree in Philosophy. This is a discussion not a thesis. Both are now working in menial jobs. God bless em.

This is a "discussion not a thesis?" What the heck is that supposed to mean? I'm only allowed to say complete BS? Is that the rule?

I gave a thoughtful, point-by-point response to your post. Are you upset about that?

Nothing that I said is profound, and it's not even complicated. It is, however, correct.

I'll share my ideas however I please, thanks. If you're going to spout some cliche, romanticized ideas because they make you feel smart, go for it. You just end up sounding insane when you call people "intellectually moronic" because you are asserting that you know for certain (via logic) that people cannot know for certain (via logic).

Why do you pick on nextgencoin for using logic to determine that logic can't determine anything, while at the same time you are bigoted against only certain kinds of bigots?

nextgencoin is only promoting idiocy, which, although isn't very helpful, is not the condemnation of a complete stranger to hell for eternity for characteristics they were born with because of the God you believe in. Sorry, I'm bigoted against people who are awful towards others and take pride in it.

Also, I really don't understand your point as it is exactly written. Are you suggesting that I should be a bigot towards myself for correcting someone's poor use of reasoning?