why is the existance of God so absurd

Such a believe would be a bellief that the UM does not exist.

Greeks stated the the is Prime Mover... Aristotle...

 

The origin and composition of the cosmic egg are still pretty much a total mystery. Let's not overstate what we know.

 

Lol... all the same winning arument. Kindergarten.

no it is Your understanding of the implications of randomness are lacking of any understanding what you've just said.

 

I am forced to conclude you are either God or a megalomaniac, because you either know everything or just think you know everything.

God forbid someone should correct you when you're wrong...

 

Isn't it just as likely/unlikely as any other series of results? 6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6 is just as likely/unlikely as 4,6,4,4,2,2,4,1,2,1 (which is what I just rolled).

 

I'm not over stating anything, but to say we have no idea is a bit of a stretch.

 

So you are going to ignore that fact that temperature involves the movement of particles, the relativity of frames of reference for motion, and inertia because these undeniable, observable facts are inconvenient for your conclusion?

Please show me something that is at absolute rest. I can't wait.

Aristotle spoke of both a mover and movers. All in all, he was a polytheist (more accurately, a henotheist), as most other Greeks were.

He was also ignorant of modern physics. He knew nothing of inertia (or rather, he only knew half of it). He didn't realize that heat involved atomic movement, and he didn't realize that all movement is relative to a frame of reference (i.e. if I am in a train car tossing a ball, I will measure it as moving up and down. If you see my car passing your train station, you will measure the ball as rocketing forward as well as moving up and down).

The unmoved mover argument is not treated seriously by anyone with an elementary education in physics. Anyone who realizes that temperature involves motion, is familiar with inertia, or understand that measuring movement requires measuring it relative to a frame of reference knows that the unmoved mover argument is bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Until you mentioned it, I didn't realize that there were still creationists out there who bought into it.

Again, feel free to point out anything at absolute rest.

 

Don't throw pearls at swines...

Don't bother Debating with God haters, they already made their choice.

 

Oh Bull,religion is not politics,,,,,two different things. One is a personal insult to the posters faith, the other is not...get it right....

 

The absurdity, in my view, is claiming to have all these answers when really the faithful have none, but rather only speculation. So to simply believe is intellectual sophistry. IMHO.

 

Not in the text of my reply, not in the context

I just said existance (of material things)=motion(of material things).

no.
no.

Yes and it is irrelavant.

no. anyone with an elementary education in physics who has read the argument [not by Aristotle] wouldn't object it.

I understand you'r excluding Newton. Until you mentioned it, I didn't realize that there were still creationists out there who bought into it.

Any inertial frame of reference moving with 'uniform velocity'.

 

I think your confused a out Christianity... You are required to believe Jesus is God and your creator and accept his FREE gift of salvation.

Anything you do beyond that is just gravy.

If it's to hard to do that theres always Islam

 

Thats not free though. You are forsaking every other deity for one, essentially guaranteeing your own (*)(*)(*)(*)ation.

 

And you'd never tell what is forcing you...
I may be wrong, you are not even wrong.

Why don't you start tread "Inquisitor is either God or a megalomaniac" or "Inquisitor is such a person" so then atheists feel like addressing me personally wouldn't mess other debate?

 

Then you are completely re-writing the unmoved mover argument into something that doesn't appeal to movement at all.

I spent two semesters studying Aristotle and provided you with a link to an academic work that specifically focuses on his polytheism. Yes. Yes.

Not to the unmoved mover argument. The UM argument says that movement requires someone to initiate it. This goes against what we know about physics.

All UM arguments appeal to the need for an outside force to initiate movement.

Hows many times have I mentioned inertia now?

Yes, Newton believed in God, but show many anywhere where he used the unmoved mover argument. His laws of motion render an unmoved mover completely unnecessary unless the natural state of the universe is absolute stillness.

I asked for an example of ABSOLUTE stillness. This is stillness relative to an observer within the same framework. In this example, there is still (even in your own words) MOVEMENT.

If there is no such thing as absolute rest, then there is no need for a UM.

 

No other diety yet has demonstrated it on himself.

 

The results of EACH dice roll is equally likely, but the odds of rolling the same number twice is less than rolling two different numbers, and still less with every successive roll.

The chance of a coin toss coming up heads is 1 in 2. The chance of it coming up heads twice in a row is 1 in 4; three times consecutively 1 in 8; 4 times 1 in 16; 5 times 1 in 32, etc

 

The issue is not WHO you insult but THAT you insult while at the same time bad-mouthing insult.

I try to never insult. I don't always succeed. But I am willing to admit that whenerv I insult, I have failed. You should too, rather than try to sweet-talk your way out of hypocrisy.

 

Don't make me quote Jesus.

 

Who says the Big Bang is chance? YOU?

Who says the ecosystem is chance? YOU?

Fact is, is we don’t know enough about The Big Bang to say it was chance or is was inevitable, or that is was....I think you get the drift. All we do know, is there is evidence of a big bang to start the Universe (perhaps this 'version' of the Universe may apply?)

Ecosystems work because of Evolution and Natural Selection. Gravity is what makes Solar Systems and Galaxies 'work'. Not too hard really.

Saying 'god' is the one that 'sparked' The Big Bang is known as the God of the gaps - a unsubstantiated claim of the super natural.

Since you want to have your unsubstantiated claims, then so can I. I contend that Joey, the 3 legged monkey, get mad one day because his satellite dish was blown over by the super-natural winds. Seeing how this was the 3rd time in a short amount of time, he pulled out his ray gun and blew up his TV set, thus causing The Big Bang.

Now before you think Im just being a smart ass, keep 3 things in mind:

1 – Joey and your 'god' have just as much evidence to support each other.
2 – Both have the same exact chance of existing
3 - Both have the same exact chance of creating The Big Bang.

Once you realize why you reject Joey the 3 legged monkey, then you'll realize why I reject your 'god'

 

There are two main problems with the idea of a creator.

1) There is nothing about creation that necessarily implies Godhood. Even if there was a creator, there is no reason in this fact alone to believe it was a God.

2) A miraculous creator is always a problem because any sort of universe can be explained by appeal to it. Therefore nothing about any particular universe can be used to infer a miraculous creator. To put it simply, all appeals to a miraculous creator are inherently non-explanatory.

So my advice is that if you want to find some kind of evidence of God or sense in the God-idea, you abondon this search with regards to creation.

 

Your deity hasn't either. Might as well through 3,000+ names, one for each god, into a hat and pick one.

 

Which means any specific set of results are equally likely.

I wasn't comparing the odds of rolling the same number twice vs the odds of rolling just any two different numbers. I was comparing the odds of rolling the same number twice vs the odds or rolling two specific numbers. How are the odds of rolling a 6 and another 6 different from rolling a 6 and then a 4?

How is that? How are the odds of rolling a 6 and then another 6 any different from rolling a 6 and then a 4?

Calculate the chances of rolling a 6 ten times in a row and then calculate the chances of getting the exact roll that I mentioned earlier. The chances are the same. Again:

If I am rolling unloaded dice, they don't "remember" what they've rolled previously. A 6 and a 4 are both a 1/6 chance regardless of what was rolled previously.

You are comparing the odds of rolling two sixes in a row vs the odds of getting any other combination of numbers. I'm comparing the odds of rolling two sixes in a row vs the odds of getting another two specific results.

I'm talking about if we are comparing it to any other specific set of out comes, not just any other set of out comes besides the one that you rolled. Tossing two heads in a row is a 1/4 chance, but so is tossing a head and then a tail; so is a tail and then a head; the same for two tails.

If you toss a coin twice, there are four possible results: heads/heads, heads/tails, tails/heads, or tails/tails. There is a 1 in four chance of each result.

Tossing heads 10 times in a row is just as likely/unlikely as any other set of ten specific and ordered results.

Just calculate the odds of getting exactly these results in the two examples below:

Heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads

vs.

Tails, heads, heads, heads, tails, heads, tails, tails, heads, tails

 

How is that? How are the odds of rolling a 6 and then another 6 any different from rolling a 6 and then a 4?

Calculate the chances of rolling a 6 ten times in a row and then calculate the chances of getting the exact roll that I mentioned earlier. The chances are the same.

If I am rolling unloaded dice, they don't "remember" what they've rolled previously. A 6 and a 4 are both a 1/6 chance regardless of what was rolled previously. There is a 1/36 chance of getting two sixes in a row. There is a 1/36 chance of getting a six and then a four.

You are comparing the odds of rolling two sixes in a row vs the odds of getting any other combination of numbers. I'm comparing the odds of rolling two sixes in a row vs the odds of getting another two specific results.

I'm talking about if we are comparing it to any other specific set of out comes, not just any other set of out comes besides the one that you rolled. Tossing two heads in a row is a 1/4 chance, but so is tossing a head and then a tail; so is a tail and then a head; the same for two tails.

If you toss a coin twice, there are four possible results: heads/heads, heads/tails, tails/heads, or tails/tails. There is a 1 in four chance of each result.

Tossing heads 10 times in a row is just as likely/unlikely as any other set of ten specific and ordered results.

Just calculate the odds of getting exactly these results in the two examples below:

Heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads, heads (1 in 1,024)

vs.

Tails, heads, heads, heads, tails, heads, tails, tails, heads, tails (1 in 1,024)

The odds are the same.

 

There is a difference in what you were talking about and what I was.

The odds are equal in this example. You have a deck with 100 DIFFERENT cards (that they are all different is important). Your instructions are to draw a random hand of a specific number of cards, say 4. The odds drawing any particular hand are equal because all cards are different and the number of cards drawn must always be the same.

As soon as you add, for example, suits to the cards, the odds for each hand become different if based on suit. If you have 10 suits of 10 cards each, the odds of drawing all "hearts" is much smaller than drawing any hand from the combination of all possible 4-card hands.

There is an error in your thinking though. We're not in "gambler's fallacy" territory.

"If I am rolling unloaded dice, they don't "remember" what they've rolled previously."

This is irrelevant. If you have 2 dice with 6 sides, the precise count of 2-dice combinations is what the caluclation is based on. I used coins because they are the equivalent of "2-sided dice."

With one coin, your chances of rolling a head is 1 in 2. If you flip the coin twice, the total number of combinations is 4 (HH TT TH HT), so the odds are 1 in 4. etc. If the order doesn't matter (if you flip them both at the same time) the odds are 1 in 3 for any combination (TT HH TH).

The gambler's fallacy applies when you think that flipping 5 heads in a row means your odds of rolling a 6th head are less.