Introducing The Universal Religion

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#545 Apr 14, 2014
Thinking wrote:
You present no evidence for your claims. So there is no need to provide evidence for any counter claim.
<quoted text>
I claim there are perfect laws. Your agreement or counter-claim?

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#546 Apr 14, 2014
NightSerf,
I here and now claim that there are imperfect man-made laws which are the necessary products of the imperfect intelligence of an imperfect man.
That there are perfect (scientific) natural laws which must therefore be the necessary products of a perfect intelligence.
Your counter-claim, please?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#547 Apr 14, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> I claim there are perfect laws. Your agreement or counter-claim?
You have failed to substantiate that claim. Your instance that I must agree or make a counterclaim is one of the basic fallacies that more commonly take the form, <statement>, prove me wrong. The reason that is a fallacy is unsubstantiated claims need not be rebutted. The lack of evidence for the claim is enough to refute it until such evidence is forthcoming.

When challenged to list and substantiate these perfect laws, you presented the list without any evidence to show that any of them actually functioned in the real world. Nevertheless, I refuted most of them, showing that they failed to rise above the level of philosophical abstractions that had not been shown to operate in the real world. You responded with farfetched scenarios that only exacerbated the fleeting and ephemeral quality of your position.

I won't go down that road again. Readers can review previous pages if they want more detail, but for now, I am satisfied that your arguments have all been refuted.

There are no perfect laws. The universe operates on principles of science that are being explored and understood at a dazzling pace by real scientists, not by me and certainly not by you. But they are not laws in the same sense as the laws that we humans create and improve to govern our own affairs. There is nothing to suggest that the principles of science were created by any mind at all. To believe that is a matter of faith, not knowledge. No superior mind would confuse the two.

You belief that you mind is superior to those with whom you contend is probably your most serious delusion. You should seek help.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#548 Apr 14, 2014
Many typos in that last post. Please read around them. In the second sentence, "instance" should have been insistence. My fool fingers seem to have minds of their own.
Thinking

Wellingborough, UK

#549 Apr 14, 2014
You present no evidence for your claim.
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> I claim there are perfect laws.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#550 Apr 14, 2014
Thinking wrote:
You present no evidence for your claim.
<quoted text>
Have you countered my claim?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#551 Apr 14, 2014
Again, jide oni insists that anyone who points out that he has failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate his claims counter them with a claim of his own. That assumes, again, that any claim stands as true until another one supplants it, but the reality is that no claim stands as true until it has been substantiated with evidence, logic, and reason. Theories that are accepted in spited of weak support are often supplant by better ones, but that doesn't change the fact that the old ones were accepted too readily in the first place by people who were either afraid or ashamed to admit that they didn't know the answers to the questions before them.

The best research papers that I've read always ended with suggestions for further research, the subtext of which is, here's something we need to know, but don't yet. The mark of a good scientist as well as a real skeptic is awareness of the limitations of their current knowledge. Neither are willing to make stuff up to fill in gaps of uncertainty. That's what differentiates them from most philosophers and all theologians.
Thinking

Wellingborough, UK

#552 Apr 15, 2014
Why?
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Have you countered my claim?
Amused

Lowell, MA

#553 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> I claim there are perfect laws. Your agreement or counter-claim?
List your so-called "perfect laws", along with your proof that they are a) laws and b) perfect.

So far your claims have been so vaguely stated as to make debate the equivalent of trying to nail jello to a wall. No more ragtime. If you have some claim to make, spit it out. If not, please just go away.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#554 Apr 15, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
List your so-called "perfect laws", along with your proof that they are a) laws and b) perfect.
So far your claims have been so vaguely stated as to make debate the equivalent of trying to nail jello to a wall. No more ragtime. If you have some claim to make, spit it out. If not, please just go away.
i am going nowhere, rather it is atheism that is making its exit hence.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#555 Apr 15, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
List your so-called "perfect laws", along with your proof that they are a) laws and b) perfect.
So far your claims have been so vaguely stated as to make debate the equivalent of trying to nail jello to a wall. No more ragtime. If you have some claim to make, spit it out. If not, please just go away.
I don't have 'so-called' perfect laws.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#556 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> I don't have 'so-called' perfect laws.
... and the Jello slides further down the wall, unimpeded by the nail. You claim the existence of "perfect laws", yet you cannot state what those laws are. Surely, if they are "perfect", then part of their "perfection" would be the ability for people to articulate them.

Since you cannot spell out what these claimed "perfect laws" are, their existence and their perfection are both called into question. If you prefer to dodge the question by quibbling about the appellation "so-called", you are as much as admitting that you cannot meet the question head on.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#557 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> i am going nowhere, rather it is atheism that is making its exit hence.
More ragtime than Scott Joplin.

Since: Jan 14

United States

#558 Apr 15, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
... and the Jello slides further down the wall, unimpeded by the nail. You claim the existence of "perfect laws", yet you cannot state what those laws are. Surely, if they are "perfect", then part of their "perfection" would be the ability for people to articulate them.
Since you cannot spell out what these claimed "perfect laws" are, their existence and their perfection are both called into question. If you prefer to dodge the question by quibbling about the appellation "so-called", you are as much as admitting that you cannot meet the question head on.
I have earlier listed the 37 natural laws with brief explanations.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#559 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
I have earlier listed the 37 natural laws with brief explanations.
Insufficient. You must also provide evidence that these laws actually operate in the real world. You've not done that.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#560 Apr 15, 2014
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Insufficient. You must also provide evidence that these laws actually operate in the real world. You've not done that.
Evidence everywhere, even you.

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#561 Apr 15, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Evidence everywhere, even you.
So you have nothing

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#562 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> Evidence everywhere, even you.
Still insufficient. You have to present the evidence in a cogent and well organized form and then explain how it shows that the laws you present operate in the real world. How can you possibly claim to have a superior mind and not know how to do that?

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#563 Apr 16, 2014
Mikko wrote:
<quoted text>
So you have nothing
everything

“Sweden more democratic thanUSA”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#564 Apr 16, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text> everything
Everything of nothing is still nothing

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Kasich's atheist criticisms seem out of touch 9 min TrapMusic 25
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 29 min hpcaban 20,179
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Joe Fortuna 257,121
News Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris are old news - a t... 4 hr Reason Personified 186
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Rose_NoHo 45,411
What is of greater value for humanity: Chrisita... 8 hr Eagle 12 412
News Who is an atheist? (May '10) 18 hr hpcaban 9,498
More from around the web