Zierro

9977

It's not a red herring. You are saying that god is doing things the wrong way and I asked what you would think the right way is. I'd just like to state that I'm saying everything is as perfect as it can be. For example, you might think a world with death is bad, but if you look at the big picture, a world with overpopulation is even more bad. Death is the lesser of the two evils, therefore it's the most perfect things can be. (IE: The right way.) If we were faster, stronger, and smarter than we presently are, then you could still argue that we should be faster, stronger, and smarter because there is still more room to improve unless you mean we should be infinitely fast, strong, and smart which doesn't make much sense to me. That would mean that those terms didn't even exist to us. If we were infinitely fast, we wouldn't be able to experience the joys of stopping to smell the roses. We also wouldn't be able to have races. If we were infinitely strong, we wouldn't need to workout and become inspired by the progress we made. We also wouldn't be able to have competition - since we'd all be the same, and competition is a beautiful thing if you ask me. It's the little things that make life what it is. Life is not a mission if that's what you're thinking. The same applies to this. You can always tell me things can be better and you will never stop, until they are infinite. Can infinity even exist? What is good about immortality? To be honest with you, I don't want to live forever. Of course I see the bright side in immortality as well as mortality, but my point is that you're just using your subjective opinions. Some people see mortality as an already perfect thing. A world without food? I disagree. Food is one of the many reasons I think god could exist. Something so appealing to our taste buds seems too good to be derived from luck. Copy and paste: The Earth...its size is perfect. The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life. The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. Even a fractional variance in the Earth's position to the sun would make life on Earth impossible. The Earth remains this perfect distance from the sun while it rotates around the sun at a speed of nearly 67,000 mph. It is also rotating on its axis, allowing the entire surface of the Earth to be properly warmed and cooled every day. And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.4 So everything should be handed to us? In the perfect world, we wouldn't be able to feel the joys of our own personal triumphs and successes? How does that constitute as perfect world at all? And perhaps the separation between those who believe and those who don't believe is good? I know you're going to be asking for proof, but before you do, where is your proof that having non-believers in the world is a worse thing than a world full of all believers? My guess would be that it's a test, that it would be a contradiction to freewill, that the debate of his existence helps humanity achieve a better understanding of the world, or that god enjoys a world of skepticism. In your definition of a perfect world, this debate wouldn't exist. And honestly, I enjoy these types of debates and I think you do too or else we wouldn't be doing them. Ah, the concept of suffering always seems to pop up with these arguments. Think of a battery. There is a positive and a negative side and each has it's own role to make the battery have a use. Well, that's how I see life. It has it's ups and downs, and without either one there wouldn't be much of a point to it at all. How do you describe hot as? The opposite of cold. How do you describe up as? The opposite of down. How do you describe good as? The opposite of bad. Without the other, the other one wouldn't even exist. Bad is necessary for good to exist. That is why we have suffering and bad things like that. Saying that the universe is completely random is a positive claim. Let's look at cause and effect shall we? The effect is evolution, life, the current world, and where we are today. You are telling me that there is no cause. That doesn't make logical sense. The existence of the universe doesn't conform to the concept of cause and effect. Bring up the big bang if you want, but that brings up a new question. What caused the big bang? You see, you made a ridiculously illogical claim as well that requires an unduly amount of evidence. Yet I'm the one making hypocritical arguments? So, how about you prove that there can be an effect without a cause, inside the boundaries of logic of course. I'm glad I'm not faced with that sort of challenge, since god claims to be outside of our logical grasp. :P My argument was that god made reproduction - or more specifically: life - possible at all. My apologies for directing it towards evolution as a whole.

Well since you're too thick-headed to go back and read my post (is it fear?), I'll just bring it to you. Why do you think it is more morally righteous to keep our population high right now, just so we can run out of natural resources at a faster rate, thus ending the human race sooner? In a nutshell, it's all about moderation. If our population stays low at the moment, then the human race will be able to survive on this planet for longer - we'll have the opportunity to advance more. Oh and this has nothing to do with race or religion - so don't bring up the holocaust. It has to do with statistics. It depends... Was it right after WWII or right after WWI when the baby-boom occurred?

And how does that apply to something unfalsifiable and unprovable? Looks like you're the one ignoring points. I'll ask again. Since the burden of proof is on you to show how the universe can be a much better place than it currently is, why not enlighten me? That's another thing I hate about the burden of proof. No actually, it's not the logical fallacy I have beef with. It's the poor appliance of the fallacy, and how it can easily be flung on either party for an advantage. Is it up to me to prove god can exist, or is it up to you to prove god can't exist? Let me reword that: Is it up to you to prove that things are just based on pure luck (a universe with the lack of god)? If you can't prove that there is some sort of contradiction or proof out there, showing that the idea of god is impossible, then that can also be easily denied. All that's required is a simple rewording and both will be positive claims.

Then by that logic, no one other than scientists may post on threads pertaining to science. No one other than parents may post on threads pertaining to child-raising. No one other than non-virgins may post on threads pertaining to sex. I always thought the beauty of TIF was that opinions will be coming from numerous types of people all over the world. You're free to make correlations if you want, but that should only be after the fact - not before it. Just because I am not a coach or a Christian doesn't mean I don't have the right to say on an internet forum that firing someone for committing an action that "is not Christlike" is just an extremely bad way of saying "I don't agree with what you did", but with an unnecessary attachment of divine morality on it. Is it 'Christlike' to fire someone for running up the score?

9983

Metallica - The Judas Kiss

That was just the first line. You didn't read it did you? I'll tell the truth. No. But that's only because the first sentence was such a turnoff. Even after reading all of it, I still think it was pretty lame. I should've stuck with my gut instinct after reading the first line. I'm sorry for being a jerk... :^o

It's a lame twist of the poem The Raven by Edgar Allen Poe.

And what alternatives are there? Tell me how you think the perfect world or the perfect god would work. Let me guess, a world without suffering...? Am I correct? You're assuming that there's no purpose of evolution at all. I wouldn't know the purpose being a human being and all, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Oh wait. Burden of proof. I forgot... every opinion we have must have scientific proofing backing it up. I guess I can't say my favorite color is black anymore. I don't understand why you think the burden of proof implies that absolutely nothing has a chance of existing, until it can be proven. The reason I don't take a liking to this is because when we're philosophizing about what is "proven" you will always have the ability to keep asking for an unduly amount of evidence. Doesn't work with metaphysics though. Trying to prove something dealing with metaphysics is like trying to send a kiss through a messenger.

And we are also in a debate, so I guess that means nomination for being argumentative is relevant as well. On a more serious note, I don't think I need to be neither a basketball player nor a Christian to say that it's bogus to fire someone off the basis that their actions were "aren't Christlike". Like I said, if they want to fire him then by all means that is fine but a legitimate reason is required. Sorry if my post seemed like it was insulting to Reb - I was focused on the whole appeal to authority thing.

Fortuity implies nothing more than "that's just the way things are". But I suppose you're right about that being precisely analogous to the existence of god.

You are all being too prejudice. These groups of people should be judged based on who they are, not by their stereotypes. :notalk:

You don't understand evolution. Couldn't one argue that the concept of evolution itself had some divine mind work behind it?

Or how about this instead: If you were nominated for being one of the most argumentative TIFer's then and only then can you argue on TIF, but if not, then you are not qualified. See how ridiculous it sounds? (And arrogant at the same time?) I usually tend to stay away from bringing up logical fallacies, but there have been numerous times when students correct their own teachers. Your position doesn't automatically imply that you are going to be right. Take a look at Leonardo da Vinci. He became a better painter than his own master - even though he was in a lower position than him.

We need viruses or this world would be flooded. Its not a good thing, but It has benefits. I suppose you think the holocaust was good "because it stopped the world being flooded". i cant believe that there is so many people who think the deaths of millions of peopleare something to say "is a benefit". The holocaust involved the intentional murder of people based on ascribed statuses. If someone gets AID's by rape or other involuntary means, then I do think they deserve the vaccination. Other than that, it's all on them for sleeping around or shooting up. I don't think society should have to suffer because other people are making bad decisions. Oh and read my last post before you try to claim that your ideas are the most morally righteous.

9993

An acre isn't the best word to use for volume anyway. I should have said a square mile or something like that. Most threads are unwinnable. Actually, I think all of them are.

I know you might not be able to get out, but there would be a hole with air flowing through and you wouldn't suffocate.

System of a Down - Spiders

You fall into it and don't have any air. and suffocate to death. If there was a way to get in, then why wouldn't there be a way out?

10048

I got one. Being inside an acre made of jello.

Seers Teleport. Only a few clicks and you're at a bank. 5 and 1 are easier to withdraw than 1 1 and 3.

Yeah, not sure what the statistics are, but I can report to you that monkeys seem to be the indisputable choice amongst efficient chinners.