The Unbelievers 2013

J C

Dades wrote: »

Calling something the Ultimate Cause is itself a denial of this 'causation chain'.

It isn't a denial of a 'causation chain' .... merely the best current explantion for the starting point of the causation chains we observe all around us.

Dades wrote: »

Also, atheism isn't concerned with making claims about how the universe popped into existence, only with disbelieving the nonsense claims that religions suggest.

'New Atheists' like Prof Dawkins are not content with merely quietly disbelieving the many claims of various Theists ... they are actively claiming to have better explantions ... and let's face it, you shouldn't have to try very hard to come up with a better explantion than some 'nonesense' religious belief.
However, they are usually quite coy about what these better explantions might be.
To get the ball rolling, perhaps you might be able to try and suggest a better explantion than an Ulitimate Cause as the starting point for the 'causation chains' we observe all around us.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

and Atheists believe that He / they don't.

Atheists don't believe that god exists.

The difference is not just a matter of semantics.

J C

wrote:

J C
Atheists believe that He/they [God(s)] don't [exist].

Pherekydes
Atheists don't believe that god exists.

The difference is not just a matter of semantics.

I can see little difference between the two, other than sematics.
Please point out where any substantive difference lies

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

I can see little difference between the two, other than sematics.
Please point out where any substantive difference lies

Well, one's about believing, the other's about not believing.

They're both about belief the way you present them.

Dades

J C wrote: »

To get the ball rolling, perhaps you might be able to try and suggest a better explantion than an Ulitimate Cause as the starting point for the 'causation chains' we observe all around us.

I'll leave that to the scientists, thanks. And so should you.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, one's about believing, the other's about not believing.

They're both about belief the way you present them.

Either way they're both about a belief in the non-existence of God(s).
As far as I can see, not believing in God, is the exact same as believing that God doesn't exist.
If anything, expressing your belief as 'not believing' in God carries the possible implication that God exists ... but you are refusing to believe in Him.

Sounds highly semantic to me ... especially when there is a large 'Ultimate Cause' 'Elephant in the room' ... with his trunk lying on your lap ... and you are arguing over the sematics of how you express your lack of belief in the said 'Elephant' !!!

J C

Dades wrote: »

I'll leave that to the scientists, thanks. And so should you.

I have often 'left it to the scientists', but like I have previously said, they are quite coy about what the better explantions might be for not believing in God(s). I was hoping for better luck with you,

I was asked for something that supports belief in God ... and undermines unbelief ... the Ultimate Cause is one such phenomeon.

I rest my case ... on your advice.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

...your belief as 'not believing'...

Even a non-belief is a belief. :rolleyes:

Why can't you people actually accept that some people don't believe?

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

Even a non-belief is a belief. :rolleyes:

Why can't you people actually accept that some people don't believe?

An unsupported non-belief is indeed a belief. If I don't believe that Ireland exists that is an unsupported belief as well as a non-belief.

I fully accept that there are unbelievers in God i.e people who don't believe in God.

I'm not questioning the fact that Unbelievers exist ... just the basis for their Unbelief ... in view of the fact that the beliefs of Theists have been described as 'nonesense' and compared to things like an 'orbiting teapot' and a 'Spagehtti Monster' on this thread.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Branch Meeting wrote: »

<...>the atheist movement.

For that, you'd need fifty people a day walking in singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out.

Have you seen fifty atheists a day singing the same tune?

pH wrote: »

Now as Russell's teapot shows, it is entirely possible for humans to postulate the existence of things that science can't "disprove", and infinite number of them, and standing there anonymous and not very interesting at all - in an infinite list of "things I can think of that you can't disprove" is the christian god.

To an extent, is Russell's teapot really just showing the problem of induction? In any situation, all we're doing is making statements about the tiny subset of observations available to us. There could be teapots, coffee pots, and a ship powered by an Infinite Improbability Drive all orbiting the Sun on a course that we've never observed.

And, if we get into origins of the universe, we can say nothing useful, because we've no capacity to reproduce whatever process we might guess to have been at work.

Now, maybe there's more to the teapot business than that. But it strikes me it should really just remind us that we've no basis for distinguishing between stuff we can dismiss as fanciful, and stuff that we just haven't a John Jaysus about.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

An unsupported non-belief is indeed a belief. If I don't believe that Ireland exists that is an unsupported belief as well as a non-belief.

JC, take something you don't believe exists (for example, fairies or russell's teapot) and then support that non-belief.

If this is possible, then you should have no issue doing so.

J C

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now, maybe there's more to the teapot business than that. But it strikes me it should really just remind us that we've no basis for distinguishing between stuff we can dismiss as fanciful, and stuff that we just haven't a John Jaysus about.

This may be the (rather uncomfortable) situation that Atheism finds itself in ... but the Ultimate Cause is a very powerful argument in favour of the existence of a transcendent entity of effectively infinite God-like proportions.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

JC, take something you don't believe exists (for example, fairies or russell's teapot) and then support that non-belief.

If this is possible, then you should have no issue doing so.

There is no observable (direct) evidence for the existence of the proverbial 'fairy at the bottom of my garden'. In addition, the existence of such a fairy cannot be deduced indirectly either ... so this implies that it would be an illogical and unsupported belief, if I believed in such an entity. I could, of course, hold such a belief ... but it would be illogical and unsupported by either direct or indirect evidence ... and comparison with a belief in a 'Spaghetti Monster' could be valid.

In the case of God we also cannot directly observe Him ... but we can make indirect deductions about Him existing.
The Ultimate Cause is one such logical deduction that points towards His existence (or something very like Him). This could be classified a belief that is supported by indirect deductive evidence.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

There is no observable (direct) evidence for the existence of the proverbial 'fairy at the bottom of my garden'. In addition, the existence /non-existence of such a fairy cannot be deduced indirectly either ... so this implies that it would be an illogical and unsupported belief, if I believed in such an entity.

In the case of God we also cannot directly observe Him ... but we can make indirect deductions about Him (or something very like Him) existing.
The Ultimate Cause is one such logical deduction that points towards His existence.

Except there's the teeny problem of most of us not buying your crap about an ultimate cause.
If your arguments about that are wrong (and you know well they are and have been shown as such) then you understand exactly why we treat your god the exact same as you do with all other fictional entities and why we don't need to provide any "support" to are non-belief.

So this leads us to the point that you need to show objectively that there needs to be an ultimate cause and then that this ultimate cause must be your version of God.
Neither of which you can do without making silly assumed premises and using circular reasoning.
So your belief is as illogical and unsupported as you think a belief in fairies is.

[-0-]

Stop ruining this thread, seriously.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Except there's the teeny problem of most of us not buying your crap about an ultimate cause.
If your arguments about that are wrong (and you know well they are and have been shown as such) then you understand exactly why we treat your god the exact same as you do with all other fictional entities and why we don't need to provide any "support" to are non-belief.

So this leads us to the point that you need to show objectively that there needs to be an ultimate cause and then that this ultimate cause must be your version of God.
Neither of which you can do without making silly assumed premises and using circular reasoning.
So your belief is as illogical and unsupported as you think a belief in fairies is.

Like I have said, my deduction that an Ultimate Cause exists is based on the fact that we observe every phenomenon to be based on causation chains ... and an Ultimate Transcendent Cause is a logical dedution from the above evidence. It stands as the best explantion until a better one is provided ... and so far, this hasn't occurred.
Calling it 'crap' doesn't invalidate its validity ... nor does it provide a superior alternative.
Equally, I accept that it doesn't provide unambiguous evidence for the God of the Bible ... an Ultimate Cause could be a Deist-type God, for example.
What it provides is evidence for Theism and against Atheism.

J C

[-0-] wrote: »

Stop ruining this thread, seriously.

I'm just making a few points against the acceptance of the ideas of Unbelievers without question ... and challenging the idea that all faith in God(s) is nonesense.

If you guys don't want to discuss this, that is OK as well.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Like I have said, my deduction that an Ultimate Cause exists is based on the fact that we observe every phenomenon to be based on causation chains ... and an Ultimate Transcendent Cause is a logical dedution from the above evidence. It stands as the best explantion until a better one is provided ... and so far, this hasn't occurred.
Calling it 'crap' doesn't invalidate its validity ... nor does it provide a superior alternative.

I call it crap because that's what it is. it's big sounding words you've cobbled together from creationist loudmouths and tacked together by poor reasoning that has been torn apart by dozens here.
Ignoring counter arguments does not make your arguments valid.

Not everything we observe is based on causation chains. Even if they were, there's no reason to assume that there has to be an ultimate cause as it could be an infinite regress or something could have spontaneously began. An ultimate cause is not a logical deduction and it is as unsupported as fairies.

J C wrote: »

Equally, I accept that it doesn't provide unambiguous evidence for the God of the Bible ... an Ultimate Cause could be a Deist-type God, for example.
What it provides is evidence for Theism and against Atheism.

And then even if there was an ultimate cause, there's no reason at all to assume that it is intelligent or god like at all let alone your version.

Seems like you are trying to support your unsupported illogical conclusion with another unsupported illogical conclusion.
So is this because you are intentionally constructing a poor argument to troll or because you just haven't thought about it all that well?

FionnK86

I love coming onto this one, always funnier than You Laugh You Lose

Sarky

Why is J C back in here talking bollocks again?

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

It isn't a denial of a 'causation chain' .... merely the best current explantion for the starting point of the causation chains we observe all around us.

So everything must have a cause, except the thing which is supposedly the cause of everything? Yeah, that makes perfect sense...

'New Atheists' like Prof Dawkins are not content with merely quietly disbelieving the many claims of various Theists ... they are actively claiming to have better explantions ... and let's face it, you shouldn't have to try very hard to come up with a better explantion than some 'nonesense' religious belief.

What makes some religious beliefs nonsense and some not?
Every theist feels certain they can reject belief in every other god. Atheists just take that one step further.

Dades

Everything must have a cause (because you said so), ergo, God has a big white beard and hates the gays.

Well I'm convinced!

J C

wrote:

King Mob

I call it crap because that's what it is.

Sarky
Why is J C back in here talking bollocks again?

Using foul language to describe something doesn't make it so ... and indeed is an indication of a lost argument.

wrote:

King Mob
... it's big sounding words you've cobbled together from creationist loudmouths

The philosophical concept of an 'Ultimate Cause' has a long and noble history that goes right back to the Greeks like Plato and Aristotle ... and the concept is still valid after all these years. Every phenomenon is observed to have a cause of equal or greater creative ability and thus the chain of causation must logically start with an entity/entities of equal or greater creative power than the power and size of the Universe. Newton's Third Law is an example of the chain of causation in action.
... so it is based on tried and proven logic ... and supported by the established Laws of Science.

wrote:

King Mob
... and tacked together by poor reasoning that has been torn apart by dozens here.

Where did this occur ... links please?

wrote:

King Mob
Ignoring counter arguments does not make your arguments valid.

I cannot ignore counter arguments that I am unaware of ... if you want to do so I will address any arguments you might care to make.

wrote:

King Mob
Not everything we observe is based on causation chains. Even if they were, there's no reason to assume that there has to be an ultimate cause as it could be an infinite regress or something could have spontaneously began.

The Laws of Thermodynamics prohibit an infinite regress ... unless you argue that there was once an infinity of energy which is a logical and physical impossibility.
Any spontaneous beginning would amount to nothing producing everything ... which again is a logical and physical impossibility.

wrote:

King Mob
An ultimate cause is not a logical deduction and it is as unsupported as fairies.

An Ultimate Cause is a logical deduction from the tight causation chains that we observe around us. Fairies are simply a figment of the imagination ... with neither direct nor indirect evidence for their existence.

wrote:

King Mob
And then even if there was an ultimate cause, there's no reason at all to assume that it is intelligent or god like at all let alone your version.

You do have a point there.

wrote:

King Mob
Seems like you are trying to support your unsupported illogical conclusion with another unsupported illogical conclusion.
So is this because you are intentionally constructing a poor argument to troll or because you just haven't thought about it all that well?

Myself and millions of people have logically thought it through ... and it has yet to be bettered.

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

So everything must have a cause, except the thing which is supposedly the cause of everything? Yeah, that makes perfect sense...

Everything is indeed observed to have a cause external to itself ... and this is part of the very Laws of Physics.
... so the Universe must logically also have an Ultimate Cause that is also external to the Universe itself ... and that Cause is so great that it is of God-like capacity.

ninja900 wrote: »

What makes some religious beliefs nonsense and some not?
Every theist feels certain they can reject belief in every other god. Atheists just take that one step further.

Some Theists pick out the various logical insights of different religions and they don't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater', like you say Atheists do, by rejecting the existence of God simply by focussing on the errors in different religious beliefs.

J C

Dades wrote: »

Everything must have a cause (because you said so), ergo, God has a big white beard and hates the gays.

Well I'm convinced!

Everything has a cause of equal or greater creative ability because we observerve everything to have a cause of equal or greater creative ability ... so it's not because I say so ... it's actually because I see so!!!

... and Jesus Christ doesn't have a white beard ... and He loves everybody (including Gays) ... and wants to Save them.

Nodin

J C wrote: »

Using foul language to describe something doesn't make it so ... and indeed is an indication of a lost argument..

My bollocks it is.

J C wrote: »

The philosophical concept of an 'Ultimate Cause' has a long and nobel history that goes right back to the Greeks like Plato and Aristotle ....

The appeal to antiquity....

J C wrote: »

Myself and millions of people have logically thought it through ... and it has yet to be bettered.

...the appeal to popularity

Geomy

Welcome back JC :-)

J C

Nodin wrote: »

My bollocks it is.

It's certainly not adding to your credibility.

Nodin wrote: »

The appeal to antiquity....



...the appeal to popularity

and in combination with logic and observation it is pretty strong evidence for my case!!!

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Using foul language to describe something doesn't make it so ... and indeed is an indication of a lost argument.

Nope, whining about naughty words is an indication of a lost argument and a very poor debater.

J C wrote: »

The philosophical concept of an 'Ultimate Cause' has a long and nobel history that goes right back to the Greeks like Plato and Aristotle ... and the concept is still valid after all these years.

It doesn't matter who supported the idea and for how long, this is an argument from authority, tradition and antiquity.
It doesn't even matter if Plato and Aristotle weren't wrong about everything all the time (which they were), if you can't support the idea on it's own merits without the support of Big Names which you haven't actually studied, then it is worthless.

J C wrote: »

Every phenomenon is observed to have a cause of equal or greater creative ability and thus the chain of causation must logically start with an entity/entities of equal or greater creative power than the power and size of the Universe.

Ok, please prove this.

J C wrote: »

Newton's Third Law is an example of the chain of causation in action.
... so it is based on tried and proven logic ... and supported by the Laws of Physics.

It's always a treat to watch you try to pretend you understand physics, please show that Newton's This law is a chain of causation.

(FYI, just declaring something is proven doesn't make it so.)

J C wrote: »

Where did this occur ... links please?
I cannot ignore counter arguments that I am unaware of ... if you want to do so I will address any arguments you might care to make.

Try literally any thread you decide to troll.

J C wrote: »

The Laws of Thermodynamics prohibit an infinite regress ... unless you argue that there was once an infinity of energy which is a logical impossibility.
Any spontaneous beginning would amount to nothing producing everything ... which again is a logical impossibility.

The Laws of Thermodynamics do no such thing.
Also, you are arguing for the existance of god who requires infinite energy meaning you don't even understand your own nonsense.
And again just stating something is logically impossible doesn't make it so.
Please show in detail why something spontaneously beginning is impossible.

J C wrote: »

An Ultimate Cause is a logical deduction from the tight causation chains that we observe around us. Fairies are simply a figment of the imagination ... with neither direct nor indirect evidence for their existence.

You do have a point there.

So since you can't actually link this unproven ultimate cause with your version of god, why can't people who believe in fairies not claim that their fictional entity is that ultimate cause.
They seem to have an equal claim to it as yours does, yet you are dismissing them without providing the proof you are demanding from us.

J C wrote: »

Myself and millions of people have logically thought it through ... and it has yet to be bettered.

But it's pretty clear you have a very different definition of the word logical than most other people who understand it.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Nope, whining about naughty words is an indication of a lost argument and a very poor debater.

I'm not whining about it ... I'm just pointing out that the use of foul language detracts from any case you may want to make ... and it was generally indicative of a 'busted flush' ... when I used to play Poker!!!

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't matter who supported the idea and for how long, this is an argument from authority, tradition and antiquity.

... having authority, tradition and antiquity on your side isn't bad at all ... but it becomes an insurmountable argument ... when it is combined with logical deduction from observed reality!!!

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't even matter if Plato and Aristotle weren't wrong about everything all the time (which they were), if you can't support the idea on it's own merits without the support of Big Names which you haven't actually studied, then it is worthless.

I'm not relying solely on Plato ... I was just pointing out that the concept of an Ultimate Cause isn't some new-fangled idea of Creationism, as you were dismissively claiming it to be.

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, please prove this.

It's proven by the fact that it is never observed to not occur ... just like every other scientific and logical law.

King Mob wrote: »

It's always a treat to watch you try to pretend you understand physics, please show that Newton's This law is a chain of causation.

'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' is part of the proofs for a chain of causation for every phenomenon.

King Mob wrote: »

(FYI, just declaring something is proven doesn't make it so.)

I fully agree.

King Mob wrote: »

The Laws of Thermodynamics do no such thing.
Also, you are arguing for the existance of god who requires infinite energy meaning you don't even understand your own nonsense.
And again just stating something is logically impossible doesn't make it so.
Please show in detail why something spontaneously beginning is impossible.

It has never been observed to occur ... so it is 'in the land of the Fairies' until it is observed to occur.

King Mob wrote: »

So since you can't actually link this unproven ultimate cause with your version of god, why can't people who believe in fairies not claim that their fictional entity is that ultimate cause.
They seem to have an equal claim to it as yours does, yet you are dismissing them without providing the proof you are demanding from us.

They don't have the postulated capacity to be the cause of anything, except perhaps another Fairy!!!

King Mob wrote: »

But it's pretty clear you have a very different definition of the word logical than most other people who understand it.

Why so?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

I'm not whining about it ... I'm just pointing out that the use of foul language detracts from any case you may want to make ... and it was generally indicative of a 'busted flush' ... when I used to play Poker!!!

Lol well it's a good thing you put that "cool lingo" in "air quotes". makes it look like you use it all the time...

J C wrote: »

... having authority, tradition and antiquity on your side isn't bad at all ... but it becomes an insurmountable argument ... when it is combined with logical deduction from observed reality!!!

A logical deduction you have not outlined. Without it, using authority, tradition and antiquity alone is a fallacy.

J C wrote: »

I'm not relying solely on Plato ... I was just pointing out that the concept of an Ultimate Cause isn't some new-fangled idea of Creationism, as you were dismissively claiming it to be.

Never argued that. Just that you were cobbling together your position from creationist propaganda, probably without understanding it.

J C wrote: »

It's proven by the fact that it is never observed to not occur ... just like every other scientific and logical law.

Please show that it has never been observed to not occur.

J C wrote: »

'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' is part of the proofs for a chain of causation for every phenomenon.

Please explain how this is a part of the "proofs" for a chain of causation.

J C wrote: »

I fully agree.

And yet here you are, just declaring things are proven...
Does this mean you agree your post is utter crap?

J C wrote: »

It has never been observed to occur ... so it is 'in the land of the Fairies' until it is observed to occur.

An ultimate cause has never been observed.

J C wrote: »

They don't have the postulated capacity to be the cause of anything, except perhaps another Fairy!!!

They are ficitional entities, they can have any capacity you want them to have. How do you know that fairies cannot be the ultimate cause?

J C wrote: »

Why so?

Because I understand logic and I have read your posts. The things you call logical aren't.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Lol well it's a good thing you put that "cool lingo" in "air quotes". makes it look like you use it all the time...

Lol ... never had too many busted flushes myself ... but when I did ... I went 'poker faced'!!!:)

King Mob wrote: »

A logical deduction you have not outlined. Without it, using authority, tradition and antiquity alone is a fallacy.

... ah ... but when it is supported by every observation ever taken by science the combination is effectively unassailable.

King Mob wrote: »

Please show that it has never been observed to not occur.

There's the thing ... it has never been observed to not occur i.e. each action has a reaction and all phenomena are observed to be produced by agents of an equal or greater creative power than themselves.

King Mob wrote: »

Please explain how this is a part of the "proofs" for a chain of causation.

Each and every action causes a reaction ... which is an example of directly linked linked causation.

King Mob wrote: »

An ultimate cause has never been observed.

... correct ... but we can indirectly deduce what its properties must be.

King Mob wrote: »

They are ficitional entities, they can have any capacity you want them to have. How do you know that fairies cannot be the ultimate cause?

Because they aren't supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and transcendent of time and place ... and if they were ... they would be God ... and not Fairies.

King Mob wrote: »

Because I understand logic and I have read your posts. The things you call logical aren't.

Things like what?

King Mob

J C wrote: »

Lol ... never had too many busted flushes myself ... but when I did ... I went 'poker faced'!!!:)

Truely you are a "hip cat"...

J C wrote: »

... ah ... but when it is supported by every observation ever taken by science the combination is effectively unassailable.

But it's not supported, nor have you tried to show it is supported.
It's a fallacy you made either because you were to ignorant to realise that or you think that we were. So care to explain which?

J C wrote: »

There's the thing ... it has never been observed to not occur i.e. each action has a reaction and all phenomena are observed to be produced by agents of an equal or greater creative power than themselves.

Each and every action causes a reaction ... which is an example of directly linked linked causation.

Ok, please prove this.

I'm not going to just take your word for it. Further you've said that just declaring something doesn't make it true.

J C wrote: »

... correct ... but we can indirectly deduce what its properties must be.

And we can do this also for the other options I suggested.
And even then there's no way to verify that these deductions are valid.

J C wrote: »

Because they aren't supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient and transcendent of time and place ... and if they were ... they would be God ... and not Fairies.

Says who? Why can't they be omnipotent in some way, but still be different from God? Maybe they are omnipotent, but are indifferent to humans?

By your logic they are as valid as your God, yet you reject them for the same reason we reject your God.

J C wrote: »

Things like what?

You last few posts.

J C

King Mob wrote: »

Truely you are a "hip cat"...

... a hip cat ... and an acrobat!!!:)
... you should see my shiny fur coat!!!

King Mob wrote: »

But it's not supported, nor have you tried to show it is supported.
It's a fallacy you made either because you were to ignorant to realise that or you think that we were. So care to explain which?

Ok, please prove this.

I'm not going to just take your word for it. Further you've said that just declaring something doesn't make it true.

You don't need to take my word for it ... just look around and 'google it' ... and tell me if there is any action that doesn't have a reaction or any phenomena that is observed to be produced by an agent of less creative power than itself.

King Mob wrote: »

Says who? Why can't they be omnipotent in some way, but still be different from God? Maybe they are omnipotent, but are indifferent to humans?

If they were omnipotent, but indifferent to humans, they would be a Deist-type God ... but a God nontheless.

King Mob wrote: »

By your logic they are as valid as your God, yet you reject them for the same reason we reject your God.

I reject Fairies as an Ultimate Cause because they objectively don't have the capacity to be one ... you appear to reject God for the subjective reason that you don't like Him ... even though He loves you.

King Mob wrote: »

You last few posts.

Specifically where do my posts lack logic?

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Specifically where do my posts lack logic?

Specifically, the whole of every single one.

King Mob

J C wrote: »

... a hip cat ... and an acrobat!!!:)
... you should see my shiny fur coat!!!

I was mocking you JC. Seems a bit like wasted effort... and a little cruel now...

J C wrote: »

You don't need to take my word for it ... just look around and 'google it' ... and tell me if there is any action that doesn't have a reaction or any phenomena that is observed to be produced by an agent of less creative power than itself.

Sorry, that's not how it works. You're making the claim, you have to back it up.

J C wrote: »

If they were omnipotent, but indifferent to humans, they would be a Deist-type God ... but a God nontheless.

But not your god. But even though they could still be the ultimate cause you are harping on about, you reject that they exist.

J C wrote: »

I reject Fairies as an Ultimate Cause because they objectively don't have the capacity to be one

How can they objectively have or not have anything?
Please show objectively that they could not be the ultimate cause.

J C wrote: »

... you appear to reject God for the subjective reason that you don't like Him ... even though He loves you.

Nope, I reject him for the same reason you reject fairies. I just don't have a dishonest, ignorant double standard.

J C wrote: »

Specifically where do my posts lack logic?

Because you make really faulty conclusions based on very bad logic. All of what you just said in your last post are examples of this.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Specifically, the whole of every single one.

Not very specific ... are we?
I guess you can't find any examples then.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Not very specific ... are we?
I guess you can't find any examples then.

He was specific. All your posts. Be has quite effectively identified what he was asked to.

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

Gbear wrote: »

The impression I get of Dawkins is that I think a lot of the "aggressiveness" that gets bandied around to describe him is maybe more his being too serious and perhaps lacking a sense of humour.

"I think fun and entertainment are over-rated." - Richard Dawkins

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Not very specific ... are we?
I guess you can't find any examples then.

Just stop. You were boring, predictable and dishonest on evolution, you're boring, predictable and dishonest on this topic, and I'll bet good money on you being boring, predictable and dishonest on anything else you 'debate' here.

You keep failing. Stop it.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Not very specific ... are we?
I guess you can't find any examples then.

He was very specific, every single one of your arguments lacks logic (on purpose, as you are a faux-Christian troll trying to Poe Boards.ie).

You really can't get more specific, which ironically makes your post complaining about this lack logic.

JTMan

Anyone know when this is Irish cinemas or have I missed it? Thanks.

MagicMarker

Highly doubt it will be in the cinema tbh.