For the Creationists

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually all I am claiming is that design indicates a singularity of desire
”
And we have demonstrated that it doesn't - which you, obviously having never sat on a steering committee, would not understand.

and steering committees don't pass resolutions that are singular in desire?
like for instance if a steering committee is determining whether they will manufacture pencil sharpeners red or green, will they resolve this issue singularly?

“
I take it you haven't read the post previous to the one you posted
”
Yes - I had - and there was no answer to the question I raised.

then perhaps you can explain how an entity can exist in the absence of time and space without being omnipresent - good luck

“
you brought it up - not me
”
Eh? How is this in any way an answer to the question?
I am taking from this that you are unable to understand logic.
Fair enough.

you say the topic is irrelevant to the discussion, but you brought up the topic
:shrug:

“
hence its not sufficien t ot say that simply because they seek relief in the same object, the object is false - in fact it tends to indicate that the object is factual since we have no experience of anything that people express a need for in all times and circumstances that does not exist factually.
”
Oh - it exists alright - as a psychological comfort - the psychological effect being entirely material in nature. THIS is Occam's razor working.

you might want to test the sharpness of that razor of yours if you want to start talking about the psychological being material - particularly since there is no material foundation for the comprehension of the substance of the psychological (sure there are behavioral observations however)

“
hardly
”
Great counter argument, LG. One of your better ones.
You grow wearisome to debate with - as you continually try and skirt around the questions you don't want to answer.

I assumed you were not in the mood for discussing the subject, since, despite dressing your response up with your beloved razor, it boiled down to "I don't think so"

“
how so?
”
I'll leave you to work that one out for yourself.

well if we are talking about the odds of a coin landing heads, we have in fact seen and observed coins landing on heads, but if you want to skirt the subject, fine, it wouldn't be the first time

“
its not clear whether you are advocating that empiricism advocates something or nothing - it can be cleared up by you answering this question

(In other words is empiricism fully dependent on the medium of ignorance for progress?)
”
No - I was saying I was sorry as I fail to see the relevance to the discussion.
I'm putting it down to you trying to side-track the debate again.

ditto

“
its also called not relying on arguments of confidence
”
Only for those who don't understand logic.
And I am not going to teach you logic, LG. I again leave that for you to do on your own.

if you can't distinguish between your opinions and logic, its better people learn somewhere else

“
hence your knowledge of what is your favourite colour is not perfect since it is not constant
”
Riiight - so define perfect to fit your own arguments and then force it on others. Pathetic.

as a champion of the cause of logic, what else could perfect knowledge be if not perfect in all circumstances (if it wasn't, wouldn't it be imperfect knowledge?)

“
theory is falsifiable by practice - if you think otherwise, feel free to provide any evidence
”
And as yet you have shown no evidence that your "theory" is able to be put into practice.

sure I have
begin the practice of giving up sin and control your own mind and senses

 

[VitalOne]

Most of the delusional claims of theism *do* have evidence to the contrary. So you're being completely dishonest in your attempt to turn the argument back on atheists.

Zombie saviors, contrary passages in biblical mythology, bullshit claims in Genesis, the myth of Noah being lifted directly from the fictions of Sumerian epics, the earth stopping for 24 hrs, the BS claim that the "walls" of Jericho were brought down by trumpets and shouting, the BS claims that Israelites "conquered" the Canaan highlands, etc, etc, etc, etc.....

So, it is your claim that [insert favorite god(s)] exists that is delusional -a delusion supported by thousands of years of fiction and mythology built upon the ignorance of Bronze and Iron age people who succumbed to magical thinking.

No, they don't, why do you atheists enjoy lieing to yourselves for? Most theistic claims that there's no evidence for have no evidence because it is impossible to gather evidence for them...thats why there's no evidence......just as with the many-worlds interpretation or the superstring theory...its just untestable...unverifiable...

How is creationed explained Vitee?
"Somehow by some unknown means, at some unknown time, some way god just did it"

How can you falsify creationism?

Easy, all you have to do is show the RNA and genetic information system arising naturally...biologists have all the resources in labs....I wonder why they've been trying for over 50 years and still can't produce it? I wonder why they can't show the so-called self-replicating polymers turning into bacteria?

Crapola and utter rubbish. You redefined and restricted a word to help your own argument.

Delusion: a definition on WordNet

And clearly, to call something "false" means that there is evidence that said something is indeed false. (edit, Vitee will probably reverse this on me, so I'll leave it, and reword: To call something false means that there is no evidence supporting it's true statement)

No, I used the regular dictionary for my definition, it really depends which definition you use...:

de·lu·sion /dɪˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

But, let's say we decide to use your atheistic definition, what evidence in the contrary do you have? Nothing, nothing at all.......except for "Well I don't believe in Santa Claus, FSM, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn"

There is no evidence. You have yet to do anything other than reverse logical arguments used against you. You excel at attempting a vocabulary aikido...using our own strengths against us. Unfortunately you are only successful at appearing the parrot.

There is evidence for design, consciousness, etc.....as for the rest the reason there's no evidence is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to gather evidence for things like heaven and hell, God, karma, etc...tell me how can I gather evidence for this?

Atheism is ENTIRELY based off the argument from ignorance, which is "if there's no evidence, it must be false":
"An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Thus we can conclude that atheists are ignorant fools, since they always use arguments from pure, untouched ignorance...

And you know what? They'd be RIGHT to question some guy coming around claiming - with no evidence mind you - that there were black holes.

Regardless of if they'd be right to question, they'd ultimately be wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, because the truth is the truth with or WITHOUT evidence...atheists can careless about what the actual truth is, they only care about what the current evidence shows (bunch of ignorants)

Whatever evidence currently shows is what is accepted as true yes. However, you fail to realise that science as a field and a discipline accepts no absolutes and will change and evolve as theories and evidences are discovered and tested as correct. You are just bitter that science has no choice but to reject a theory that is dear to you. There is NO evidence of anything being correct in creationism, so why should we listen to you (et al.) at all?

Actually, I'm not the one who fails to realize this, you're the one who fails to realize this. If you did then you wouldn't constantly use the argument from ignorance....

The foolish atheist thinks that whatever the current evidence shows is the absolute truth, and thus rejects anything without evidence at the current time, those deluded fools...when will they care about the actual, absolute truth and stop caring about what only appears to be the truth...

 

[Enterprise-D]

Easy, all you have to do is show the RNA and genetic information system arising naturally...biologists have all the resources in labs....I wonder why they've been trying for over 50 years and still can't produce it? I wonder why they can't show the so-called self-replicating polymers turning into bacteria?

Clearly you have no concept of time. 50 years is nothing, not even an atom in the drop in a bucket of water as compared to billions of years.

No, I used the regular dictionary for my definition, it really depends which definition you use...:

de·lu·sion /dɪˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

Since we are on a scientific forum, let's use the psychiatric definition shall we?

But, let's say we decide to use your atheistic definition, what evidence in the contrary do you have? Nothing, nothing at all.......except for "Well I don't believe in Santa Claus, FSM, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn"

The default position is - as was said before - that there is no god, no Santa, no FSM, no invisible pink unicorn without reasonable evidence. You're arguing from a forgone conclusion that has no basis in reality other than your own perception.

There is evidence for design, consciousness, etc.....as for the rest the reason there's no evidence is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to gather evidence for things like heaven and hell, God, karma, etc...tell me how can I gather evidence for this?

You can't. Therefore you should not be preaching to anyone that god, heaven, hell etc exists as a forgone conclusion.

Consciousness btw is self evident, we've been thru that.

Atheism is ENTIRELY based off the argument from ignorance, which is "if there's no evidence, it must be false":
"An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. "

Whether this is true or not (and I'm not going into this here at all, it's been done to death)...it doesn't mean that your beliefs hold any water at all.

Regardless of if they'd be right to question, they'd ultimately be wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, because the truth is the truth with or WITHOUT evidence...atheists can careless about what the actual truth is, they only care about what the current evidence shows (bunch of ignorants)

Still doesn't give you the right to pose your beliefs on anyone without evidence. It also doesn't give you the right to become upset when people correctly rebuke you. Your perception and theisms have little bearing on the rest of the planet.

Provide evidence, and you'll get an audience. Black holes are provable, god - thus far - is not. On top of which, worship of such a being if it exists is a totally different question.

Actually, I'm not the one who fails to realize this, you're the one who fails to realize this. If you did then you wouldn't constantly use the argument from ignorance...

The foolish atheist thinks that whatever the current evidence shows is the absolute truth, and thus rejects anything without evidence at the current time, those deluded fools...when will they care about the actual, absolute truth and stop caring about what only appears to be the truth...

Which atheist or agnostic ever said absolutely that no god exists? With proper evidence I'd be quite willing to entertain the theory of a god.

Like you said, if such a being truly exists, my belief is irrelevant. However, neither this being nor you (et al.) have revealed any convincing evidence. Therefore, it is illogical to leap to the conclusion that any god exists. Did people with no knowledge of black holes suddenly wake up and say "oh my, i believe large, gravitationally inescapable holes exist around my planet. I shall preach of them and kneel before their power"? No, evidence must be first presented; and of course it is considered ludicrous to worship black holes, now that we know what they are!

Your fixed belief must be classed as a delusion since you are resistant to reason and you have not confronted any of the facts that science have put before you. You consistently harp on logical arguments that have been used against you, cleverly switching a few words to appear the valid opponent.

 

[Sarkus]

No, they don't, why do you atheists enjoy lieing to yourselves for...

Blah blah
Drivel
Blah blah

...when will they care about the actual, absolute truth and stop caring about what only appears to be the truth...

VitalOne, when will you stop and actually try to learn something, rather than beating the same horse you have tried in any number of threads.
Your position has been shown to be solely against STRONG atheists - i.e. those atheists who have a positive belief in the non-existence of God.
Further, your argument is confused and poorly thought out - you claim these strong-atheists are arguing from ignorance and yet you do exactly the same thing with regard to the apparent ongoing experiments for abiogenesis (e.g. "They can't do it therefore God did it!").

Stop bringing up this tired argument unless you can argue it through rationally and with a sound argument to support your case.
Your argument grows tiresome but for some reasons seems to be about the only thing you feel you can argue about? Why is that?

 

[VitalOne]

VitalOne, when will you stop and actually try to learn something, rather than beating the same horse you have tried in any number of threads.
Your position has been shown to be solely against STRONG atheists - i.e. those atheists who have a positive belief in the non-existence of God.
Further, your argument is confused and poorly thought out - you claim these strong-atheists are arguing from ignorance and yet you do exactly the same thing with regard to the apparent ongoing experiments for abiogenesis (e.g. "They can't do it therefore God did it!").

Stop bringing up this tired argument unless you can argue it through rationally and with a sound argument to support your case.
Your argument grows tiresome but for some reasons seems to be about the only thing you feel you can argue about? Why is that?

This entire thing is ad hominem (go look that one up too), except for a few points...

Saying there was an intelligent cause instead of abiogenesis isn't an argument from ignorance, its argument based upon empirical observation and a logical conclusion, no undirected naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause...using your logic if someone concluded that a computer was intelligently designed but had no evidence humans built it or that it formed naturally, they are using an argument from ignorance...hahahahaha

The only reason my arguments grow tiresome is because atheists can't address it...its all true...the entire atheistic argument is based off "since there's no evidence God exists, God doesn't exist (even though its impossible to gather evidence that God exists)" ahahaha, these atheists try anything...

 

[ashura]

The only reason my arguments grow tiresome is because atheists can't address it...its all true...the entire atheistic argument is based off "since there's no evidence God exists, God doesn't exist (even though its impossible to gather evidence that God exists)" ahahaha, these atheists try anything...

My disbelief of God stems from a lack of evidence, not from evidence pointing towards his nonexistence. Thus, if real evidence ever turns up, I'd be on your side of the camp in a second.

But regardless, how does the opposite of that statement, "Since there's no evidence God exists, God does exist" make any sense to you?

 

[VitalOne]

My disbelief of God stems from a lack of evidence, not from evidence pointing towards his nonexistence. Thus, if real evidence ever turns up, I'd be on your side of the camp in a second.

This is a re-confirmation that atheism is really based off the argument from ignorance....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

But regardless, how does the opposite of that statement, "Since there's no evidence God exists, God does exist" make any sense to you?

This isn't what theists say, theists simply say they believe in God, and they have faith God exists, etc....atheists say things like "atheism requires no faith" (a delusional lie) and "atheism is rational" (another delusional lie), "everyone's born an atheist", and other delusional atheistic propaganda

Theists simply say they believe there is more than this, what we currently know, atheists say there is no more than this, what we currently know, there is just nature and causeless chance, meaningless chemical reactions that cause emotions and feelings, etc...

 

[Sarkus]

Saying there was an intelligent cause instead of abiogenesis isn't an argument from ignorance, its argument based upon empirical observation and a logical conclusion...

And you said that with a straight face???

Let's look at your claim...

no undirected naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause

1. Please provide evidence of "no undirected natural cause"
2. Please provide evidence of "design features".

You earlier claim that this so-called argument is based on "empirical observation". Please detail this observation.

So while the logic might be ok in this instance, it is based on flawed/unproven assumptions - and thus to "believe" the outcome as truth is irrational.

...using your logic if someone concluded that a computer was intelligently designed but had no evidence humans built it or that it formed naturally, they are using an argument from ignorance...

Logical fallacy - Strawman - I suggest you look this up.

My logic is not as you claim - nor has it ever been.

My claim is that you're spouting unsubstantiated drivel - aimed specifically at strong atheists.
Further - that you are guilty of the very same thing that you accuse the atheists of.

The only reason my arguments grow tiresome is because atheists can't address it

It's because, to put it bluntly, you continually demonstrate (deliberately or otherwise) an irritating level of ignorance and unwillingness to read and understand what other people say. You continually use strawmen fallacies, you continually fail to back up any claim you make with evidence, and you continually post the same flawed comments again and again and again, despite what other people explain to you.

ANY other person, demonstrating any level of reasonableness and rationality, would have moved on by now, knowing that they have been shown to be spouting drivel.

It is just a pity that you can't see that.

...the entire atheistic argument is based off "since there's no evidence God exists, God doesn't exist...

For the last time - NO IT ISN'T!!!

The entire atheist argument is "I have no reason to have a positive belief in the existence of God".
And for the last time - most atheists do NOT have a positive belief in the non-existence of God.

If you continue to claim that they do then you are doing nothing but confirming your inexcusably poor grasp of logic and rationality.

 

[Saquist]

Ooh, I missed this one Saquist. Of course they had to submit to Microsoft's design scheme and format. It was created by at least the team of Bill Gates and Steve Balmer. The point of the whole analogy was to show that complex designs do not necessarily allude to a SINGLE designer.

Please keep in mind that "Microsoft" is just a business name. Any design scheme and format would have to be agreed upon by Bill, Steve and any other stakeholder such as the board of directors. A team. More than one.

Besides which, your own US Government almost made MS two entities

You might be intrested to know that just as Microsoft and government have administrations so does God.

Eph. 1:10 Speaks of the Adminstration that God has put into place. As we know and administration's purpose is to provide a command structure and the appropriate delegation of task. Unlike an Earthly administration's God's adminstration will always be one and united.

Saquist,

First, you don't "know" anything about anything. You believe that God is the creator and all that...but you don't know. All you know is what you've read in a book, OK? Let's get that straight right now. Enough with the preaching.

Secondly, all you creationists are trying to do here is inject your religious beliefs into science. That's all you're doing. There isn't a shred of evidence to support your claims; just because abogenesis hasn't been proven, doesn't make your stance correct. What I find hysterical (and frustrating) about this whole conversation is that the first thing you creationist whackjobs do is point out the potential errors in abogenesis, and how it hasn't been proven, but you turn right around and claim that ID is fact without having provided a single piece of evidence! You dismiss one on the same grounds you accept another!

Science has discovered evidence that supports abogenesis. Science has found none to support ID. Do you know where the whole idea of ID was formed? IN THE BIBLE. You people literally are basing your notion on the creation of the universe based on the writings in a TWO THOUSAND YEAR OLD BOOK! It's laughable! And it's laughable that you people buy into this cult...like, considering that god has supposedly created the universe, set trees ablaze and spoken through them, and all of those other fantastic things that he claims to do...why did he not write the book himself? I think that's the funniest part of this whole thing. God created the universe, but he needs a dude in sandals to write his "word" for him. ahhaha

You have nothing to support your claims, fellas. Nothing. Nodda. Zip. Zilch. Zero. Zed.

Even the top ID proponent couldn't answer simple, basic questions posed to him regarding the fallacy of his idea. He couldn't even defend himself.

Just take a good, long look at yourselves. You guys are basing your entire belief structure on words written by men thousands of years ago. Words that display an utter lack of understanding of how the world and the universe work, and even contradictory in a many places. And you live your lives by it! Not only that, but now you're trying to force these ridiculous notions into public school classrooms under the guise of "Intelligent Design". Well, your ID is bullshit, as is evident to anyone who isn't in a cult, or even to you, if you'd just open up your damn eyes.

But fine. I don't expect to change your minds. Enjoy your cult.

Well Dawg my knowledge is as I have learned. The same I'm sure is true of yourself. I've been a Christian all my life. I've looked up at the stars and have been awe-struck by their precision since my first eclipse. Every since I've been an unofficial astronomer. I've studied the constellations and the power that maintains the sun.

Obsesively I've engaged in theory of all sorts. Studing the past of science recently became a huge intrest to me. Facinated by early sciences contributions to the Earth I often wondered why the discoveries of today pale in comparision to Newton, Einstein, Copernicus and many others. I discovered that these men were God fearing individuals. They made assuptions about the universe, about our world based on their biblical views.

Science endeavors to answer how but by it's very nature it can never answer why. It can never answer why. Not because of arrogant presumption of it's members but because it's a question science is ill equiped to answer. Why, is a one word question for reason, Scince is the one word answer for How things work.

There ends are different but they are connected.
Everything I've seen and experienced exudes the presence of a creator. Not everything happens for a reason but a series of impossible happy coincidence is not something I'd ever believe in.

Men of Science have tried hard. However the bible has always proved 100% reliable. The existence of an all power creator in the presence of so much evidence is far more likely than the luck that would be necessary to explain the improbability of life from lifelessness.

Even when your scientist fail right before your eyes, you still have unwavering devotion. Now, that's faith. And faith in a men to lead you...that's a cult. A cult of science.

 

[Enterprise-D]

You might be intrested to know that just as Microsoft and government have administrations so does God.

Eph. 1:10 Speaks of the Adminstration that God has put into place. As we know and administration's purpose is to provide a command structure and the appropriate delegation of task. Unlike an Earthly administration's God's adminstration will always be one and united.

Self serving justification. There is no requirement for any sort of omnipotence to require an administration other than laziness.

 

[Saquist]

Negative. Order begets order. The order isn't just implied it's a requirement.

 

[Enterprise-D]

- Well then, why does any orderly CEO fire people?
- Who said anything about being orderly? I said that an omnipotence does not require any (support) administration. For such a thing to happen, that entity would be less than omnipotent.

 

[ashura]

This is a re-confirmation that atheism is really based off the argument from ignorance....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Argument from ignorance: The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.

Sound familiar?

This isn't what theists say, theists simply say they believe in God, and they have faith God exists, etc....atheists say things like "atheism requires no faith" (a delusional lie) and "atheism is rational" (another delusional lie), "everyone's born an atheist", and other delusional atheistic propaganda

Theists simply say they believe there is more than this, what we currently know, atheists say there is no more than this, what we currently know, there is just nature and causeless chance, meaningless chemical reactions that cause emotions and feelings, etc...

By being a theist, you inherently agree with that statement. There is no evidence for God, God does exist. You yourself mentioned that no evidence can be found, and yet you still believe in God.

 

[VitalOne]

Argument from ignorance: The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.

Sound familiar?

Hmm....seems like you intentionally missed this part "or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true"

sound familiar???

Besides most theists don't claim they believe because there's no evidence God doesn't exist, they say they have faith, belief, personal experiences, etc...atheists on the other hand (like Richard Dawkins) exclusively state the reason they don't believe in God is because there is no evidence...thereby matching the EXACT, precise definition of the argument from ignorance......

By being a theist, you inherently agree with that statement. There is no evidence for God, God does exist. You yourself mentioned that no evidence can be found, and yet you still believe in God.

No, being a theist I agree with the statement "if there is no evidence for nor against something then it exists as a distinct possibility"...theists say they believe because of their own rationality, experiences, etc...

Being an atheist you agree with the statement "If there's no evidence God exists, then God doesn't exist" (an argument from ignorance)

The reason this doesn't work is because it doesn't make sense...take for instance in ancient times there was no evidence that blackholes existed...that didn't indicate non-existence, it only indicated there was NO EVIDENCE, not even the slighest, smallest, most infinitesmal amount of evidence indicating blackholes existed....still with or WITHOUT evidence the truth is the truth...something atheists can't seem to grasp...

Also unverifiability != false, if the many-worlds interpretation can't be tested, or evidence can't be gathered for it, it doesn't indicate that it isn't true....this is obvious to everyone EXCEPT for the atheist...

 

[ashura]

Hmm....seems like you intentionally missed this part "or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true"

sound familiar???

Heh, of course I didn't miss it. I was merely pointing out the fact that in this case, you and I are two sides of the same coin.

Besides most theists don't claim they believe because there's no evidence God doesn't exist, they say they have faith, belief, personal experiences, etc...atheists on the other hand (like Richard Dawkins) exclusively state the reason they don't believe in God is because there is no evidence...thereby matching the EXACT, precise definition of the argument from ignorance......

Sure, that's all fine and dandy, but tell a theist that God doesn't exist and what'll he/she/it say? Prove it.

No, being a theist I agree with the statement "if there is no evidence for nor against something then it exists as a distinct possibility"...theists say they believe because of their own rationality, experiences, etc...

Being an atheist you agree with the statement "If there's no evidence God exists, then God doesn't exist" (an argument from ignorance)

Too bad that's not what I agree with. In fact, I happen to agree with your statement 100% sans one word: If there is no evidence for nor against something, then it exists as a possibility. I have never ever ever said that "God does not exist and I know that for a fact".

 

[Sarkus]

atheists on the other hand (like Richard Dawkins) exclusively state the reason they don't believe in God is because there is no evidence...

Correct.

...thereby matching the EXACT, precise definition of the argument from ignorance......

NO!!

HOW MANY TIMES do people have to tell you before you'll listen?????!!!

You are assuming ATHEISM = I BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST

IT DOESN'T!!!

Being an atheist you agree with the statement "If there's no evidence God exists, then God doesn't exist"

I am an atheist - and I DO NOT say that.

Would you like me to start making up false beliefs that you have?
"Hey - you're a theist - so you believe that women should be chained to the kitchen-sink!"

 

[Saquist]

- Well then, why does any orderly CEO fire people?

To maintain Order of course.

- Who said anything about being orderly? I said that an omnipotence does not require any (support) administration. For such a thing to happen, that entity would be less than omnipotent.

Yes, that is what you said. Omnipotence doesn't require anything. Yet two or more like minds require organization. We are many minds...that's what religion is...organization.

 

[Ophiolite]

This entire thing is ad hominem ..

I think that persons who indulge themselves in willfull ignorance fully merit every ad hominem directed towards them. Have the courtesy to use the brain that God gave you and you might find you get more tolerant responses.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Yes, that is what you said. Omnipotence doesn't require anything. Yet two or more like minds require organization. We are many minds...that's what religion is...organization.

No Saquist, I didn't specifically say "god requires a support structure". This whole analogy started when you said logic requires that a design begets a single designer. This is where is spiralled into design committees etc, and thusly arriving at this contrived point. We were simply pointing out that a design does not necessarily originate from one designer. Project Manager, Company, CEO notwithstanding, there can be multiple participants, any one of whose absence would result in a failed design. Simply as a counterpoint to your own assumption of a single designer...if we accepted that the universe required a designer at all.

PS If god is omnipotent and requires nothing, why would he require your constant worship and praise?

 

[Ophiolite]

PS If god is omnipotent and requires nothing, why would he require your constant worship and praise?

And why would he want the worship and praise of a turkey?