tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post4918638335266329958..comments2024-03-29T11:20:48.180+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: Creationism Fails! Universe Didn't Need A God To ExistRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-43439005037336590832015-11-05T16:55:08.753+00:002015-11-05T16:55:08.753+00:00I can understand why you're such a coward that...I can understand why you're such a coward that you have to remain anonymous. Your preaching and entirely irrelevant spam, here and elsewhere in this blog have been removed because even Christian bigots are expected to have the courtesy to comply with the rules of engagement here.<br /><br />I hope it helped you feel better about yourself by judgementally condescending to strangers from the safety and anonymity of your room and behind the shield of your computer screen. It's about the level of behaviour I've come to expect of fundamentalist Christians who obviously use their phoney piety as an excuse for their antisocial behaviour.<br /><br />Any more spam will likewise be deleted.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-61037629052013893732015-11-05T15:42:13.107+00:002015-11-05T15:42:13.107+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-6652166403069133472015-11-01T15:11:55.166+00:002015-11-01T15:11:55.166+00:00The special theory of relativity does not show tim...The special theory of relativity does not show time stops at the 'speed of light'. The rest of your comment and your question is thus redundant, but even if it hadn't been, why do you assume science thought it was necessary to show that it does? So far as I know, no scientists, let alone Einstein over 100 years ago, feels any obligation to demonstrate William Lane Craig's idiotic and evidence-free notions for him. If William Lane Craig can't demonstrate the validity of his own crackpot ideas then there is no reason to take him seriously. It's just sad that he keeps trying to redefine his magic imaginary friend in such a way as to make it untestable and inaccessible to science, but still manages to fool his credulous dupes into thinking that none-the-less, he has some way of knowing about it.<br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-78925438878625586252015-11-01T10:25:28.654+00:002015-11-01T10:25:28.654+00:00In a debate with Quentin Smith Dr. William Lane Cr...In a debate with Quentin Smith Dr. William Lane Craig has thus given a theistic notion of God: "a personal Creator, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and intelligent."<br />Here it has been mentioned that God is timeless. So, if there is a God, then in this universe there is a being that is timeless. That means if God is really there, then in that case there will be a permanent state of timelessness in this universe. God does not exist will then mean there is no such state of timelessness. God does not exist therefore means no need is there for science to show how a state of timelessness can be reached or attained, because there is no such state in this universe that requires an explanation from science. But in spite of that science has shown how a state of timelessness can be reached, because in special theory of relativity it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. If there is no state of timelessness in the universe, then why was it at all necessary to show as to how that state could be reached? <br />uchitrakarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09317803821391979129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-15847067258065842762015-10-24T10:02:02.953+01:002015-10-24T10:02:02.953+01:00Sorry you've had to resort to posting abuse to...Sorry you've had to resort to posting abuse to get attention again Tiny Timmy Kerchner, but at least you managed to avoid describing your genitalia. Well done. I had assumed you were back in care.<br /><br />Has Facebook removed any more of your fake accounts yet? Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-48254739167838443682015-10-24T03:49:39.858+01:002015-10-24T03:49:39.858+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.The Tickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10084186232545281077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-59920373738481705112015-10-19T09:06:14.485+01:002015-10-19T09:06:14.485+01:00So when will you be submitting your own research t...So when will you be submitting your own research to peer-review for publication? Hint: personal incredulity isn't scientific evidence no matter how carefully the underlying ignorance is maintained.<br /><br />By the way, before you can designate you magic invisible imaginary friend as the cause of everything you don't understand, you need to establish that it actually exists. Will you be publishing your data with which you established that 'fact' in the same peer-reviewed article?<br /><br />Or don't you actually do science as opposed to posturing and pretense to know more than scientists do? <br /><br />I wonder how many readers noticed how neatly you rushed in to prove me right when I said, <i>Ignorant incredulity, intellectual dishonesty and confirmation bias will inevitably win the day in these circles. It's better to be in the in-group and be wrong than to be right and be in the out-group. Besides, the in-group has granted itself the special privilege of being able to define what's true and what isn't. It's a matter of 'faith'.</i> <br /><br />Thank you for playing.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-88467345389030731802015-10-19T03:14:59.571+01:002015-10-19T03:14:59.571+01:00Lol, you believe the universe is nothing. Gee, a p...Lol, you believe the universe is nothing. Gee, a philosopher would laugh; stop calling something nothing. Also, you are denying the validity of intuition, ergo you are denying the validity of the First Principles of logic?<br /><br /><br /><i>“But if you mean God as a great mathematician, then yes!”</i> (btw, nice intellectual honesty in skipping this line)<br />I know of no theist who claims the laws of physics didn't exist after the beginning of the universe, so the whole article fails.<br /><br /><br />The notion was "laws of nature", especially by Descartes and Newton, are purely theological ones connoting the decree of a divine lawmaker. The orthodox view is simply projecting the attributes of God, such as immutability, omnipotence, omnipresence, and transcendence. Making sense of the regularity of the universe really depends on assuming the existence of an entity remarkebly similar to God. So when you claim such and such is explained via. laws of nature rather than God, what you are saying is:<br /><i>"The explanation isn't God, it is the laws of physics, where the laws of physics originally meant "decree of God", and where I don't have any worked-out alternative account of what it means".</i><br />You are either indirectly appealing to God without realizing it, or you are appealing to a non-explanation.<br /><br /><br />By the way, I would like you to present evidence that a claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, or I will be forced to dismiss this claim without evidence, logic, or reasoning. As you have noticed, the statement is self-refuting; it doesn't help your image, nor is it consider intellectual to deny the intellectual obligation to provide reasons of logic and/or evidence to support a belief (including burden of rebuttal and the belief that an other belief is false).<br /><br />On that note, can you provide evidence for the historical hypotheses of common descent; story telling is not evidence. You should support the claims that evolutionary mechanism are capable of bringing forth multicellular life, 100% of the diversity of species, complex biomechanical organs and biological systems, consciousness, and intelligence from the ancestors of a hypothetical proto-cell randomly through gradual steps.<br /><br /><br />Can you explain the difference between 'God of the Gaps', and a deductive argument leading to the conclusion that God exists?ShadowWhoWalkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10867251370894921001noreply@blogger.com