A test for the faithful -- you can not prove that "God" exists, can you?

Certainly there is no monopoly on the ad hominem.

 

You are probably right on that conclusion, but, there is a definite list of contenders vying for that noble and prestigious title of Emperor of the Supreme Ad Hominem Empire. LOL.

 

I'm not. I forget who it was and don't care enough to bother going back to find out. But I think it would be worth a thread!

Love your avatar btw

 

All good. Cheers.

 

Indeed. I'll expect position statements by Monday.

 

You just failed the test.

You see, I was wondering how long it would take for you to launch a personal attack when confronted with the issue - very next post.

You failed the test.

Nice test.

 

That was no personal attack. It was a statement of fact. Keep trying...

 

You failed the test again.

Again, do you see the point? I too can secretely set standards and hold you accountable to them and guess what? You failed it too.

Indeed, you still cannot explain to me how the FSM is NOT a personal attack.

 

Uh, just so we're clear, I did not make any reference to FSM. That said, how could it even be remotely construed as a personal attack? Unless the poster said something like "Neutral I hope the Flying Spaghetti Monster chokes you with his noodly appendages" there is no personal attack.

Keep trying.

 

The OP is designed in such a way as to allow the creator of the thread to use any answer that is given as a response to the test as a platform to launch a personal attack. This was evidenced when the creator of the OP made his announcement regarding the true nature of the 'test' and then spoke of how so many 'failed' the test. The people responding, did so in good faith,,, possibly trusting the perceived integrity of the creator of the OP. But then dismay fell upon those giving response when they discovered that the creator of the OP considered them as losers (having failed the test). So, yes! It was a personal attack against all those that were labeled as losers (having failed the test).

 

We exist.

We did not cause ourselves to exist.

Either we were caused by something or we were caused by nothing.

I find the first alternative more believable.

In fact, I find it difficult to believe that anyone would take the second alternative seriously as an option.

 

Once again, nice try. A personal attack, by its very nature, must be directed AT A PERSON.

And the standard employed here was wholly objective -- you either made a personal attack or you made a factual argument.

 

Blackrook has passed the test.

 

I have not been following the thread. What does it mean I passed the test?

 

It means you made your case by making a factual argument instead of a personal attack. Well done!

 

As we know it....that may be. However, as I have stated before: life is perfectly adaptable to fit its environment. If protons weighed slightly more than they currently do, you cannot tell me that life could not exist. Just life as we know it, may not exist. Big difference.

Why? Because we simply do not know enough. Stephan Hawkins says the Big Bang was a consequence of gravity. If that is true, than a consequence is neither a chance or intelligence, not is it?
And I do not equated happenstance with chance, the dictionary does.

So out of all the millions of species that have lived on this Earth, you point to one specie that can break the adapt to environment law, and you claim the law is no good?

Again, you are simply assuming that life cannot or would not exist. Life as WE KNOW IT, may know exist, but it's impossible to know whether or not any life could exist.

We just begun looking for life on other bodies in the Universe. Give me a break. Mars and Europa may indeed have some form of life, or may have had life in its past in our own Solar System.

And yes, creationist often use terms like 'fine tuned for life'. For someone who claims not to be a creationist, you sure talk just like one.

 

Sure, when someone says you beliefs without evidence are like the piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) I just made up .... that is clearly respectful dialoge - because atheists change standards at the drop of a hate.

You fail your own test again.

You did, BTW, PASS the FSM from your rediculous standards, which, when I reversed it - just as you did us - you failed.

 

And the laws of physics are not fine tuned for life. For example, life as we know it could exist if the weak nuclear force didn't exist at all.

The whole argument that a slight tweaking would result in life ending is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). There are quite a lot of settings where life as we know it could exist, it would either mean that the periodic table would be longer or shorter, etc.

 

---I don't care for amateur lessons in what a creationist is, and believe me, I get it, you don't like them. Your insistence on this aspect that honestly has nothing to do with the debate at hand is tedious and detracts from your posts, which contain good points.

 

You don't know for certain which way to call the case of my comment? Your test does not reveal which way to call this case? Hmmmm.

 

That's also right and wrong the same time. Normally every scientist would deny a teleogical view on the world because in this way causes and effects are changing their positions what would lead to a very big confusion in the thoughts. (By the way: There are exceptions in quantum physics where causes are thinkable in the future and effects are existing in the past - but this is (still) not the mainstream).

On the other side: Only little changes in the natural constants would create a universe without any possibility for life. But even this dead universes - if they are existing what would be not provable - would not explain how it is possible that they are existing at all. And it would also not explain how or why we could be able to think about, because such universes are existing without any experience. We are only able to make experiences (in a senseful scientific way) here and we are only able to fit in this universe here. Somehow we are this universe. It would be a paradox if this what we are able to learn here is in other universes the same - except everywhere is the same "logos". Sometimes it seems to me we don't have any other chance than only to believe the one and only god - otherwise would be no way for our thoughts. We are able to imagine different natures - but we are not able to imagine that the basic laws of this natures have ununderstandable rules - and if we would think so then it would make no sense at all to do so. If we like to think about other universes we need also his logos and not only our own mind.

 

It's really very interesting how you don't separate your knowledge and your belief. Without the weak nuclear force for example the sun would not shine because it's the only force what is able to convert protons into neutrons.

http://youtu.be/W3ilmKBZTSU

 

i wonder if that is considered a violent act.

what book?

you cant read the one you defend

what laws?

 

A virtual violent act - fitting to your real insolences. But feel free to shoot back with a gun: I'm the rectangle full of light in front of you.

Natural laws. Here specially laws about the stability of some periodic oscillations.

http://youtu.be/A7lkpAjbTho