Creationists

[UltimateReality]

And just for the sake of argument, let's just accept that you've just blown the notion out of the water. We'll call the idea illegitimate, and we can now table it.

No need to refute it any more.

So--FINALLY--I would suppose you are now ready to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

Otherwise, it is patently clear that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

PREDICTION: If he presents at all, what Youwerecreated will bring as evidence is just more self-contradictory, question-begging, special-pleading appeal-to-ignorance accounts of his creator instead.

I already have.

Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.

That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.

The key is what jump started these natural processes.

It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.

There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.

Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.

You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You are dismissed.

Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.

 

[LOki]

Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ?

So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You have proven it to me.

So why do you keep asking for it?

Loki the precision required in forming the first cell is evidence of a designer to me. Just waiting around for just the right precision to happen makes no sense to me at all. This thinking defies logic.

Your question-begging appeal to ignorance rationalization is a defiance of logic.

You also needed the right conditions on this planet to sustain life and there is no other planet like ours that we know of.

You should become acquainted with the weak anthropic principle.

If everything formed through natural processes there should be new life forms constantly arising and we don't see that.

Why? Why should new life forms be constantly arising? Are you presuming--in defiance of all the contrary evidence--that the conditions that exist now have always been the conditions?

We have not observed not one new life form that came about naturally without the the theory of evolution being applied.

But the fact that life doesn't just "poof" into existence, as it apparently did according to your Genesis myth, doesn't seem to cause you to have any doubts about your myth.

Life is sustained, maintained, and propagated by the interactions of non-intelligent, non-living, non-conscious bits of energy/matter. Interrupt those interactions, and life ends. No one but you disputes this.

We can't form life in the labs under all the right conditions with all the knowledge and complicated machines.

If life was created in the laboratory, you would claim that as evidence of intelligent design, wouldn't you?

This is because you have a conclusion--based on no evidence or valid logic--that you attempt to rationalize as valid by selectively applying "evidence" to.

 

[UltimateReality]

None that has satisfied you. Not a single one.

Not that it even matters to you, right? So far, you've made it patently clear your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You have proven it to me.

So why do you keep asking for it?

Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.

The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.

What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?

Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?

You can call your master, Satan, a god if you want, but he is actually a created being, not God.

 

[UltimateReality]

Why? Why should new life forms be constantly arising? Are you presuming--in defiance of all the contrary evidence--that the conditions that exist now have always been the conditions?

So what are those magical conditions, cheesecake? Another might have-could have fairy tale you dreamed up? What is your scientific evidence for these life producing conditions that existed "once upon a time"?

 

[LOki]

I already have.

Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.

That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.

The key is what jump started these natural processes.

It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.

There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.

Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.

You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You are dismissed.

Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.

What "nonsense about what "real" information is"?

You're just making that up.

Meyer is so easily rebutted, and that just crushed your presumptively superstitious hope that your fairy tale has some legitimate foundation in reason.

 

[UltimateReality]

]If life was created in the laboratory, you would claim that as evidence of intelligent design, wouldn't you?

Unless you could throw all the ingredients in a test tube, shake it a little, hit it with some neutrino's and a little gas from a volcanic vent, and puke out a complete cell, then...

yeah, pretty much.

 

[UltimateReality]

Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.

You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You are dismissed.

Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.

What "nonsense about what "real" information is"?

You're just making that up.

Meyer is so easily rebutted, and that just crushed your presumptively superstitious hope that your fairy tale has some legitimate foundation in reason.

Whatever. You have provided no evidence against it so that means it exist right? By your twisted logic.

 

[Hollie]

Without evidence that supports a belief what good is the belief ? we have a choice of naturalism or design and creation whichever term you prefer.When we consider the precision in nature and the complexity of life to me that is the evidence of purposeful design not random chance. That is not even including the positionig of planets.

The above comment is simply a cut and paste of what you have posted before. It has been addressed but here you are, cutting and pasting it again.

What "precision in nature" are you imagining? Much of nature is utterly to life. Much of nature has a habit of relentlessly ending life via hurricanes, floods, drought and a host of other natural disasters. I suppose we could attribute those things to your gods but that would put us into a feedback loop asking "why would the gods design a world where human suffering on a massive scale is a necessary requirement of their design"?

Why do your gods spend such an inordinate amount of time destroying the humanity you claim they created? Are your gods playing a game of one-upsmanship with Stalin, Hitler and a host of other psychopaths?

You can call your master, Satan, a god if you want, but he is actually a created being, not God.

Why would I call Satan a god? Is this another of your lurid fantasies?

In the genesis fable, Satan is certainly a creation; a creation of your gods. It's quite a contradiction. The gods you worship created evil and allowed mankind to suffer. The gods chose to lie in connection with the Adam and Eve tale. Satan told the truth.

It appears that you are the one worshipping evil.

 

[UltimateReality]

Satan told the truth.

So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?

 

[Hollie]

Satan told the truth.

So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?

Satan did tell the truth.

I didn't write the tales and fables, remember?

If you have a problem with your gods lying and Satan telling the truth, don't come cryin' to me.

 

[LOki]

Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.

What "nonsense about what "real" information is"?

You're just making that up.

Meyer is so easily rebutted, and that just crushed your presumptively superstitious hope that your fairy tale has some legitimate foundation in reason.

Whatever. You have provided no evidence against it so that means it exist right? By your twisted logic.

That's not my logic at all!

Mr. "You Can't Prove Me Wrong"

IT'S YOURS!!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

What "nonsense about what "real" information is"?

You're just making that up.

Meyer is so easily rebutted, and that just crushed your presumptively superstitious hope that your fairy tale has some legitimate foundation in reason.

Whatever. You have provided no evidence against it so that means it exist right? By your twisted logic.

That's not my logic at all!

Mr. "You Can't Prove Me Wrong"

IT'S YOURS!!!!

Here, let me repeat what I think your response is saying: In your best 3rd grader voice...

I know you are but what am I?

 

[LOki]

Whatever. You have provided no evidence against it so that means it exist right? By your twisted logic.

That's not my logic at all!

Mr. "You Can't Prove Me Wrong"

IT'S YOURS!!!!

Here, let me repeat what I think your response is saying: In your best 3rd grader voice...

I know you are but what am I?

Christ! You're such an insufferable douche.

You haven't even bothered to read a single thing I've posted, have you?

It's simply NOT POSSIBLE for you to have come to your conclusions if you had.

Your notions of my point are entirely imaginary. That is clear now. They are just as imaginary, and imaginary for the same reasons, as this designer you keep asserting.

Good luck with that.

 

[Hollie]

I already have.

Biological organisms were designed with reproduction in mind and that is what living organisms do, they reproduce.

That we now naturally have the ability to reproduce that is what organisms do but that was by design, not by chance.

The key is what jump started these natural processes.

It is nothing more then circular reasoning to assume because we naturally reproduce we came into existence through natural processes and we are not a product of design.

There is no evidence we came into existence through natural processes while there is plenty of evidence suggesting intelligence was behind developing life.

Refuting my claims do not provide any evidence or legitimacy for yours.

You have failed to provide your evidentiary explanation for the origin of the life of this "Creator" that you say is the source of life on this planet.

You have demonstrated that your beliefs regarding the subject have no relationship what-so-ever to any evidence ever presented to you.

You are dismissed.

Meyer argument presented. You may have think you refuted it with your nonsense about what "real" information is but you have not. You are a legend in your own mind.

Oh, lordy, man. Not Meyer. WHy did you feel a need to dredge up that hack?

Yet another creationist who made this illustrious list:

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for meyer

 

[daws101]

Read up on JOSEPHUS !

JOSEPHUS IS THE PROBLEM"Choking on the Camel
The historical evidence for Jesus
Part 1: The Conspiracy of Silence
Imagine that you were a history student assigned the task of writing a paper on the life of George Washington, America's first president and one of the country's most influential founding fathers.

On its face, this seems like a simple assignment. Encyclopedias and textbooks full of biographical information about Washington, written by notable scholars on his life, abound. Any one of them would provide enough material for a reasonably detailed report. However, this is not good enough for a diligent student such as yourself. To get the most detailed and accurate picture requires skipping the modern references, which were written centuries after the fact, and going straight to the original sources. You decide to base your report on first-hand evidence: letters written by Washington himself, accounts of his life written by people who knew him personally, and stories of his sayings and deeds recorded while he was still alive.

But, as you comb the records, you find something strange: you cannot seem to locate any first-hand sources. Though Washington is claimed to have done many wonderful things - leading the Continental Army, freeing the American colonies from British rule, presiding over the convention that wrote the U.S. Constitution, becoming the first President of the United States - somehow, there are no records of these deeds written by people who actually saw them happen, or even by people who were alive at the time. The historians who were alive during Washington's lifetime, as well as the ones that lived soon afterward, do not mention him at all. The first mentions of him come in disputed and scattered records written decades after his death; over time, these mentions grow more numerous until, by about a hundred years after his death, a chorus of historians who had never seen or met Washington themselves all testify to his existence and his deeds. It is their writings, not any first-hand evidence, that have filtered down to modern times to create the abundance of records we have today.

Would you begin to conclude that there was something very wrong here?

According to the New Testament gospels, Jesus' fame spread far and wide throughout his lifetime. He was known throughout Israel and beyond (Matthew 4:25), renowned not only as a teacher and wise man, but also as a prophet and miraculous healer (Matthew 14:5, Luke 5:15, John 6:2). Great multitudes of people followed him everywhere he went (Luke 12:1). He converted many Jews, enough to draw the anger of the Jerusalem temple elders (John 12:11). He attracted the attention of some of the most prominent leaders of his day, both Roman and Jewish (Matthew 14:1, Luke 19:47). And when he was crucified, portentous and dramatic miracles occurred on a massive scale: a great earthquake (Matthew 27:51), a worldwide three-hour darkness (Luke 23:44), and the bodies of the saints arising from their tombs and walking the streets of Jerusalem, showing themselves to many people (Matthew 27:52-53).

If these things were true, it is beyond belief that the historians of the day could have failed to notice.

And yet, when we examine the evidence, that is precisely what we do find. Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first extra-biblical documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 CE, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well (see part 2). The first unambiguous extra-biblical references to a historical, human Jesus do not appear until well into the second century.

Few if any Christian apologists will mention these extraordinary facts, but as in the George Washington hypothetical, we can rightfully conclude that there is something wrong here. The rosy picture painted by the gospels of a preaching sage and famous miracle worker followed by crowds of thousands stands in stark contrast to the reality of the extra-biblical historical record, and that reality is that mentions of the man Jesus do not exist until almost the end of the first century.

Why is this? It is not as if there were no capable historians at the time. There was, for example, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from about 20 BCE to 50 CE. His own beliefs were influenced by Platonic elements that were in some ways similar to Christianity, and his writings show interest in other offshoot sects such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae; he wrote about Pontius Pilate and he was, by some accounts, living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' death and, presumably, the attendant miracles. Yet none of his works contain any mention of Jesus or Christianity.

Other writers of the time show the same pattern. Justus of Tiberius, a native of Galilee who wrote a history around 80 CE covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, does not mention him. The Roman writer Seneca the Younger, who was born around 3 BCE and lived into the 60s CE, wrote extensively about ethics but says nothing about Jesus or his teachings. The historian Pliny the Elder, born around 20 CE, took a special interest in writing about science and natural phenomena, but his thirty-seven-volume Natural History says nothing about an earthquake or a strange darkness around the supposed time of Jesus' death, although he would have been alive at the time it happened. In fact, not a single contemporary record exists of the darkness, and there was a widespread failure to note the earthquake, much less the appearance of the resurrected saints.

Events such as these create historians. To assume that not a single person who witnessed these monumental events would have felt compelled to write them down, or that no one bothered to preserve those records if they had, violates all standards of credulity. Jesus' healings alone, if news of them became generally known, would have attracted a flood of people from every corner of the Roman Empire desperate to be cured of their ailments; and if in addition news got out of his ability to revive the dead, as the gospels say it did (Matthew 9:25-26), those crowds would have been multiplied tenfold. Surely at least one person somewhere would have written about this, even if only to dismiss it as a peasant superstition. And events such as the darkening of the sun and the resurrection of the saints, if they really happened, would have left a vivid imprint on humanity's collective memory and would have produced a flood of awed and astonished records. To suggest that the succeeding generation simply let all memory of them disappear crosses the line from unbelievable to absurd.

The only rational way to explain this, if we are not to postulate a "conspiracy of silence" among ancient writers, is that the miraculous events recorded in the gospels never happened. And some non-fundamentalist believers might indeed choose this option. Yes, some might say, the gospels are the work of men. They may have exaggerated Jesus' fame and maybe even invented a few miracles to give the story more pizzazz. But this does not necessarily mean Jesus himself never existed. Might the gospels have preserved a core of historical reality, telling a story about a preaching, reform-minded Galilean rabbi that was built upon and embellished by later generations?

In response to this, it should be noted that the historians of the time not only fail to confirm the particulars of the gospel accounts, they fail to mention Jesus at all. But if he had been a real person who did even some of the things the Bible says, it is not at all unreasonable that at least some historians would have taken notice; Josephus and others do write about other would-be messiahs of their day. Of course, if one postulates a Jesus who did not perform miracles and did not attract much notice during his lifetime, it can never be proved that such a person did not exist. However, as part 3 will show, there is a superior way to explain the origins of Christianity, one that better explains all the evidence without positing a historical Jesus at all.

The gospels cannot help in proving the historicity of Jesus, since the accuracy of the gospels is itself what is in question. When they make extraordinary claims that contemporary records fail to corroborate, as argued above, this alone casts doubt on their reliability. Additionally, their numerous internal contradictions suggest that their authors were not recording historical events they remembered, but rather telling a story, changing events where they felt it necessary to make a point. Finally, and most importantly, the gospels themselves are not first-hand witnesses. In fact, the very first unambiguous references to them do not appear until the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons, around 150 CE! This fact, combined with other evidence, has led to the conclusion that they were written, at the earliest, near the end of the first century - decades after the events they purport to describe, more than enough time for fact to become inextricably entangled with mythology and legend. Nor are the gospels independent witnesses. It has long been known that Mark, the simplest and therefore most likely the earliest gospel, provided the basic story upon which Matthew, Luke, and probably John as well simply elaborated, adding and changing details. At best, then, what the gospels provide is one anonymous, late, theologically driven source providing details which other, contemporary sources fail to confirm.

If Jesus Christ had been an actual, historical person, we would expect to have first-hand, contemporary documentation: records of his words and deeds written by people who actually saw him, or who were at least alive during his lifetime. We would expect the record of his life to be plentiful from the very beginning. On the other hand, if he was only a legend later turned into a real person, we would expect not to have any first-hand witness to his life. We would expect the historical record to be scanty and details elusive or non-existent at first, these details appearing only later as the stories about him grew in the telling. We would expect clear references to him not to appear until long after his supposed death. And of course, this scenario is exactly what we do in fact find.

Christian apologists often insist that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so strong that to deny he ever lived would force one to deny the existence of many other historical figures as well, such as Alexander the Great or Abraham Lincoln. This comparison, however, cannot be sustained. We know that people such as Alexander or Lincoln were historical precisely because we do have first-hand evidence: artifacts made by them, things they wrote, things their contemporaries wrote about them. In Jesus' case, however, we have none of these things. The pattern of evidence much better fits the birth and growth of a legend. No matter who first said it, to uncritically accept the historicity of Jesus is to strain at gnats while attempting to swallow a camel.

But can the man Jesus be dismissed so easily? Modern-day Christian apologists say not. Despite the lack of first-hand evidence, they claim, there is still good reason to believe that their messiah really did once walk the earth. Part 2 will therefore critically examine the evidence they present, demonstrating that it does not hold up under scrutiny.


Part 2: The Apologists' Arguments

Ebon Musings: Choking on the Camel



Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus
March 10, 2011 in Christianity

This blog post is part of the ‘The Resurrection of Jesus’ series. In this series, evidence that has been put forward by Christian apologists in support of the idea that Jesus was resurrected will be explored and critically examined. As we shall see, most of this evidence isn’t even good evidence in the first place, and they are insufficient to justify the conclusion that the story of the resurrection of Jesus is true.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Roman Empire

The following are names of some of the Roman historians of antiquity who lived in and around the Mediterranean region, including some of the very places that Jesus and his apostles are said to have moved about.

•Aulus Persius (60 AD)
•Plutarch (c. 46-c. 119 AD)
•Columella (1st cent. AD)
•Pomponius Mela (40 AD)
•Dio Chrysostom (c. 40-c. 112 AD)
•Justus of Tiberius (c. 80 AD)
•Quintilian (c. 35-c. 100 AD)
•Rufus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
•Livy (59 BC-17 AD)
•Quintus Curtius (1st cent. AD)
•Lucanus (fl. 63 AD)
•Seneca (4 BC?-65 AD)
•Lucius Florus (1st-2nd-cent. AD)
•Silius Italicus (c. 25-101 AD)
•Petronius (d. 66 AD)
•Phaedrus (c. 15 BC-c. 50 AD)
•Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)
•Pliny the Elder (23?-69 AD)
•Valerius Flaccus (1st cent. AD)
•Valerius Maximus (fl. c. 20 AD)
Not a single one of these historians ever even mentions the existence of Jesus Christ, a man who was supposedly performing miraculous wonders and drawing crowds by the thousands, inciting the Jewish populace, aggravating the Roman authorities, and resurrecting from the dead. For if there were such a man, and he did the things the gospel writers claimed he did, is it possible for him to have gone unmentioned in Roman records? It is noteworthy that Jesus is not even mentioned anywhere in the official Roman historical records of the events in Palestine during the time of he is said to have existed.

As such, there are no contemporaneous (i.e. within his life time) historical records of Jesus.


Examining the Extra-Biblical Evidence for Jesus « Freethought Kampala

Nothing but atheist propaganda.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj3lceK0FCQ]Jesus in History- Proof Outside the Bible - YouTube[/ame]

Nothing but creationist lies, propaganda etc...

 

[daws101]

1. the condition of this planet.
2. the planes planets travel
3. formation of the cell
4. the cell having the ability to reproduce itself
5. male and female having to come together to form life
6. plants having what is needed to reproduce through an A sexual reproduction
7. the DNA information contained in each cell

How many more examples do you need ?

None of what you describe is supernatural. those items in your list are largely understood and have no requirement for magical intervention.

Why did your gods need to design an environment that is so hostile to the design'ees you claim they created?

So you rather strike it up to coincedence.

By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself.

Your reasoning lacks logic.

We didn't need science to work and develop technology it would have come about through a natural means.

what the fuck! do you even understand what Coincidence is?
From a statistical perspective, coincidences are inevitable and often less remarkable than they may appear intuitively. An example is the birthday problem, where the probability of two individuals sharing a birthday already exceeds 50% with a group of only 23.[1]

Coincidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or Definition of COINCIDENCE
1: the act or condition of coinciding : correspondence
2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection


this statement is telling ..."By your reasoning I should let my lawn go it will take care of itself. Maybe I should not worry about my phone it will charge itself. I should not have to maintain my body or my car for it will maintain itself."ywc
1.your lawn is a 18th European century invention ,your choice to maintain it is not god's concern .
if memory serves you live in Arizona a place god never intended to have lawns
besides if you let it go it would, in time, evolve into something different and god would like that more than the artificial and out of place feature you made.
2.car and phone maintenance if god had intended you to have those things he would have designed them.
3.IMO you maintain your body more for reasons of vanity then health.

your whole post stinks of self involvement then the so called works of god.

 

[daws101]

Satan told the truth.

So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?

that should be a line in a crappy Satan worshiping film from the 50's !

 

[daws101]

Anthropic principleFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search

In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life. [1]

The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by Barrow and Tipler (see variants) states that this is all the case because the Universe is compelled, in some sense, for conscious life to eventually emerge. English writer Douglas Adams, who wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, used the metaphor of a living puddle examining its own shape, since, to those living creatures, the universe may appear to fit them perfectly (while in fact, they simply fit the universe perfectly). Critics of the SAP argue in favor of a weak anthropic principle (WAP) similar to the one defined by Brandon Carter, which states that the universe's ostensible fine tuning is the result of selection bias: i.e., only in a universe capable of eventually supporting life will there be living beings capable of observing any such fine tuning, while a universe less compatible with life will go unbeheld.

 

[UltimateReality]

That's not my logic at all!

Mr. "You Can't Prove Me Wrong"

IT'S YOURS!!!!

Here, let me repeat what I think your response is saying: In your best 3rd grader voice...

I know you are but what am I?

Christ! You're such an insufferable douche.

You haven't even bothered to read a single thing I've posted, have you?

It's simply NOT POSSIBLE for you to have come to your conclusions if you had.

Your notions of my point are entirely imaginary. That is clear now. They are just as imaginary, and imaginary for the same reasons, as this designer you keep asserting.

Good luck with that.

Projecting.

 

[UltimateReality]

Satan told the truth.

So now we see where your allegiance lies. You affirm Satan and call God the evil one. Perhaps your atheism is just a disguise for your real beliefs?

that should be a line in a crappy Satan worshiping film from the 50's !

How do you know it wasn't?