An account of debating a creationist

why does one follow the other? if one makes a paper airplane, must one make a boat as well? and an origami crane? then a real airplane?

they are separate events.

bible thumpers think that the bible must be 100% correct, else the world explodes and god gets incredibly pissed.
you think that because there is a stupid thing in the bible, one must throw it all away.


isaac newton was an alchemist. why does that have any relevance to the great things he did, that weren't superstition nonsense?

I'm not saying that one follows the other. I'm trying to understand why you have no problem in believing in god, yet call various other beliefs "superstitious nonsense". Why can't it be that god temporarily "changed" the rules of nature to allow for such a boat to exist? Why is that belief anymore "nonsensical" than believing in a creator of the universe.

I don't understand your Newton remark. Did I sound as though religious people shouldn't be taken seriously at all because they have some wacky thoughts? I don't think I did but if I did I apologize.

" So whatever I come up with, all of a sudden has a 50/50"
50/50 is a made up percentage, by you, in order to present my position as absurd. agnostics do not allow for a 50/50 chance that god exists, such a percentage is illogical. perhaps you should read what twhitehead posted in the king tiger thread. he explains probability better, you might learn something.

agnostics do not know. they define their stance as a lack of knowledge, hence the name. knowing exactly how probable such a being would be constitutes knowledge, which the agnostics do not have.

I have briefly followed the king tiger thread, but I don't think it has any relevance to this one. Yes, they spoke about probability but that's as far as the similarities go, I think. The way I see it, agnostics say "God may exist or he may not exist, I don't know." I'd say that's a 50% percent chance for them, but I'm certainly open to the idea that I have that wrong. If so, please explain if you will.

"we can't say that something doesn't exist,"
science is about making statements backed by proof. lack of proof doesn't mean something doesn't exist. there wasn't evidence the photon existed. until there was evidence. the photons didn't actually springed into existence along with their proof.

I'm not saying we can proof scientifically that God doesn't exist. Because of the "nature" of god, science by definition can't say anything about god. But that doesn't mean we can't safely say that he doesn't exist. Just as we can safely say that elves, Santa Clause and cheesepeople don't exist.

Posted separately so it doesn't "drown" in my previous post:

Based on what you've said so far, must you also consider yourself to be agnostic?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Posted separately so it doesn't "drown" in my previous post:

Based on what you've said so far, must you also consider yourself to be agnostic?

agnostics take into account the logical mindset of requiring proof before making an assertion. as such, an affirmation (god exists) as well as a negation (god doesn't exist) must be made with proof.

the faithful do not require proof. they accept the existence of god based on faith, and a deep feeling that the world "makes sense". just as we allow ourselves to feel love and be happy, even when not having proof, we also accept that god exists. proof? why do i need proof if it makes me happy?

it is not a logical stance. not everything has to be. and yes, if you will ask again where do i draw the line, it does in fact say that one act of faith must necessarily lead to another.

one decides when to accept one thing on faith and not another. i decide that a benevolent creator enriches my life. i decide that him having a white beard elf ears is not important. or whether or not it is a he or she.


the above is digressing a little. the tl;dr version is:
yes, from a logical point of view, all (atheists and theists) should be agnostic.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
[b]why does one follow the other? if one makes a paper airplane, must one make a boat as well? and an origami crane? then a real airplane?

they are separate events.

bible thumpers think that the bible must be 100% correct, else the world explodes and god gets incredibly pissed.
you think that because there is a stupid thing in the bible, one ...[text shortened]... doesn't exist. Just as we can safely say that elves, Santa Clause and cheesepeople don't exist.

"I'm trying to understand why you have no problem in believing in god, yet call various other beliefs "superstitious nonsense""
for the same reason that someone eating from a buffet table stops at the shellfish because he is allergic to it. he isn't required to eat everything from the table just because.

"Why can't it be that god temporarily "changed" the rules of nature to allow for such a boat to exist?"
that would mean that there is no knowledge to be had in this existence. if anything can change at a whim, if no experiment can produce a dependable result, we might as well go back in caves and live a life of sex and eating.

"I don't understand your Newton remark. "
one must make sure to argue each independent statement on its own merit. i wanted to make sure you understand that "god creating the world" and "god destroys the world via a series of impossible events" are two separate ideas. yes, if you can prove that god doesn't exist, then obviously he didn't do the noah flood. however it doesn't work the other way around.

my impression was you saying that if i believe that god exist i must automatically believe everything has been said about him (by every stone age "prophet"😉.

"I have briefly followed the king tiger thread, but I don't think it has any relevance to this one. "
only in the way you calculate probabilities. you said a 50/50 chance because you erroneously assumed there are only two possibilities "God exists"/"God doesn't exist".
to give you an idea where (i think) you was wrong, consider this:

what is the probability at a point in the universe's lifetime that dinosaurs would be produced? not 50/50 (is/isn't) but a ratio between all the possible configurations that produce dinos and all the total possible universes occurring from that point.

"I'm not saying we can proof scientifically that God doesn't exist."
then we are in agreement. so why is it any different for santa claus, elves and cheesepeople? maybe santa claus is an actual fat bearded supernatural dude that was spotted near a chimney and was turned in the figure we know today even if he didn't deliver an actual present in his entire immortal life.

we cannot say for sure that something doesn't exist. science cannot. what we CAN do is disprove some affirmations:
santa CANNOT deliver all the presents in the world in one night because:
-his internal organs would be crushed by the velocity needed.
-the velocity of his sleigh would ignite the atmosphere
-we know for sure presents are placed under the tree by parents.

Jesus Christ monkeyballs! How the hell do you answer so fast??

I will reply later.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Jesus Christ monkeyballs! How the hell do you answer so fast??

I will reply later.

i procrastinate at work a lot

i procrastinate at work a lot

I thought I did so as well, but you're awesome at it!

"I'm trying to understand why you have no problem in believing in god, yet call various other beliefs "superstitious nonsense""
for the same reason that someone eating from a buffet table stops at the shellfish because he is allergic to it. he isn't required to eat everything from the table just because.

He has a logical reason not to eat said shellfish (allergic, not hungry, vegetarian, whatever). There is no logical reason to call Noah's Ark nonsense, but not god. They are both equally nonsensical. You just chose to call one thing normal and the other thing nonsense because it makes you happy or something like that. Fine, but know that you're not being anymore logical (or any less nonsensical) than the bible thumpers like RJHinds and robbie carrobie.

"Why can't it be that god temporarily "changed" the rules of nature to allow for such a boat to exist?"
that would mean that there is no knowledge to be had in this existence. if anything can change at a whim, if no experiment can produce a dependable result, we might as well go back in caves and live a life of sex and eating.

Agreed. And the same goes for god's existence. Just as without any kind of proof we can dismiss Noah's Ark, we can dismiss god's existence. Or cheesepeople.

"I have briefly followed the king tiger thread, but I don't think it has any relevance to this one. "
only in the way you calculate probabilities. you said a 50/50 chance because you erroneously assumed there are only two possibilities "God exists"/"God doesn't exist".
to give you an idea where (i think) you was wrong, consider this:

what is the probability at a point in the universe's lifetime that dinosaurs would be produced? not 50/50 (is/isn't) but a ratio between all the possible configurations that produce dinos and all the total possible universes occurring from that point.


Although the margin or error is huge when trying to predict dinosaurs coming into existence on a certain newly formed planet, we can indeed say there is a ratio of chances. If a planet spins around a star too close, dinosaurs won't come into existence.

Such is not the case with god. There is no ratio for god being present or not. We (or more specifically agnostics, since that's what we're talking about) are not aware of any conditions required for god to exist. Therefore I disagree that my assumption of there only being two possibilities (exists/doesn't exist) is erroneous. If you can point to more possibilities I'd love to read it.

we cannot say for sure that something doesn't exist. science cannot. what we CAN do is disprove some affirmations:
santa CANNOT deliver all the presents in the world in one night because:
-his internal organs would be crushed by the velocity needed.
-the velocity of his sleigh would ignite the atmosphere
-we know for sure presents are placed under the tree by parents.

That is only because you chose to assign these traits to Santa. But why can't Santa have made a special protective casing that causes his internel organs not to be crushed? Why can't I make that up as you make up the existence of god? Why is it any less true?

yes, from a logical point of view, all (atheists and theists) should be agnostic.

Technically, I agree. But not just about god. We should all be agnostic, about god, about Santa, about whether or not this is the real life or just fantasy, about everything. And that makes the concept of agnosticism so very, very pointless. You just want to use the agnostics label whenever it suits you.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
[b]i procrastinate at work a lot

I thought I did so as well, but you're awesome at it!

"I'm trying to understand why you have no problem in believing in god, yet call various other beliefs "superstitious nonsense""
for the same reason that someone eating from a buffet table stops at the shellfish because he is allergic to it. he isn't r ...[text shortened]... sticism so very, very pointless. You just want to use the agnostics label whenever it suits you.

"He has a logical reason not to eat said shellfish (allergic, not hungry, vegetarian, whatever). There is no logical reason to call Noah's Ark nonsense, but not god. "
except for the countless proofs that the flood did not happen and the 0 proof that god doesn't exist.


"They are both equally nonsensical."
that is your opinion. based on nothing. i already told you it is impossible for the flood to have happened unless you discount the geological, physical, genetical, logical, historical facts that say it didn't happen. and if you do that, you are left with a supposedly supreme eternal being, that made a mockery of the laws of the universe he himself made, just to make an incredibly illogical thing that didn't work at all, only to revert back to a logical universe after that, knowing full well there would be no benefits, nobody would be able to make heads or tail of this story, that it will be heavily distorted across the ages and be inconsequential to the story of jesus anyway?

compare the above with the MUCH simpler explanation that some human invented the noah story. suddenly, you don't have a period of time where the laws of physics were turned into god's SM gimps.
why do you consider that for god to exist, he must be an megalomaniac idiot?

"Fine, but know that you're not being anymore logical (or any less nonsensical) than the bible thumpers like RJHinds and robbie carrobie. "
i find that insulting. i find that you disregard any logic when making that statement, just as i would find illogical someone saying that 4.1 is as close an answer to 2+2 =? as 4 billion is.


"And the same goes for god's existence."
one is a proven fact within a certain axiomatic system, the other is an unproven hypothesis in that system. how are they the same.


"There is no ratio for god being present or not."
that you are aware of. you saying otherwise is arrogance.


"That is only because you chose to assign these traits to Santa."
so? a hypothesis was made and proven false. proven false with our knowledge RIGHT NOW. that is how you do science. just because you cannot fathom how god may exist doesn't give you the right to make a definitive statement: "he doesn't exist"

" But why can't Santa have made a special protective casing that causes his internel organs not to be crushed?"
you are free to make that hypothesis. how would that work? how can you test it? it has been calculated how much velocity it takes for santa to deliver all those presents. make a material that would protect santa at that velocity.

"We should all be agnostic, [...] about everything"
that is called matrix philosophy. that is indeed pointless. some axioms have to be accepted as true for any knowledge to be had.