randman

It's pretty simple, and I don't see why some of you are having trouble with it.
First, the BB does suggest the universe had a beginning so that shoots down empirically the idea Sagan had.
Second, God by definition is the First Cause. Time and space are not.

lpetrich

First, our "Universe" could be a bubble in some super-Universe.

Second, for all we know, it could be Tootchko the Magnificent who is, by definition, the First Cause.

Vorkosigan

We can just "define" god into existence. What a useful idea.

The Chinese have an idea that all emerges from the formless chi. How would you go about testing which idea is correct?

Vorkosigan

DieToDeath

But we don't believe in god. Try to keep that in mind.

And another thing! According to Occam's Razor, when one is presented with two equally reasonable explanations, the simpler of the two is usually correct. Now, is the existence of a superhuman being who is all-powerful and created the whole universe, including time, a simple explanation by any stretch of the term? I think not.

hezekiah jones

DTD, randman is incorrigible. Do a search for member number 6077 in this forum, "any date." Read through some of the threads back in March. Let me know when you stop banging your head against the wall.

Then you can read his Church/State posts.

DieToDeath

I did what you said... and his existence makes me lose my faith in humanity.


...wait, what faith?

WalrusGumBoot

I'm still a newbie here, and I first thought this forum was different than the other atheist forums I've been to, in that ALL viewpoints are treated respectfully, even if they don't agree with yours. The comments that I have seen directed towards randman have been autrocious.

I'm still straddling the creation/evolution fence, and I need some answers from BOTH sides of the fence to try to come to my own conclusions. But it seems like it is always the same: creationist presents their arguments and naturalists ridicules and belittles him. It's like some major ego trip that naturalists are on which makes them arrogant and downright rude.

I've often heard from naturalists that one their major complaints against creationists is their apparent intolerance. By the naturalist's actions, they are no different, even though they claim they are. They are as hypocritcal as what they say christians are. It's hard to tell, as an agnostic, who the deluded ones are. My accusations are not all-ecompassing, as there are many great people here, but what I see developing in this thread is an ugliness that reminds me of too many other bad places on the web. If this site supposed to herald itself as an oasis of intelligence, why don't I see more of it as we deal with each other?

WalrusGumBoot

hezekiah jones

randman has a history here of calling us all ignorant, clueless, propagandists, cultists, liars, lame, pathetic, a joke, absurd, pseudo-objective, lacking credibility, disgusting, etc., etc., so I wouldn't feel too sorry for him.

I can't say I blame anyone for occasionally responding in kind (no pun intended.)

Many have been relatively patient with him and he has been presented plenty of information and substantive rebuttals which he chooses to ignore.

Quetzal

Walrus, it does happen on occasion that people who have heard the same "evolution is false" arguments over and over can get a bit dogmatic in their replies. I'm not condoning it, but it IS human nature. In the specific case of randman, I'd say it's even justified. I dislike it when someone abandons a discussion in mid-stream out of pique, then claims to have "won" an argument, then finally returns several months later spouting the exact same nonsense that had been thoroughly refuted earlier. One example is <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=47&t=000226&p=4" target="_blank">this thread</a> (start with my March 20th post). Randman has basically forfeited any consideration on my part due to past history.

As to the desire for information to enable you to make up your mind as you posited in your second paragraph quoted above, if you are sincere in that desire, you are in the right place.

One possible suggestion would be for you to start a topic/thread here in E/C. A good option would be to open with what you feel are the areas on which the evidence appears equivocal. (No, I'm not saying you need to defend creationism. I'm suggesting that since at least something in the creationist paradigm is compelling enough that you feel it has some merit, you could post it for discussion.) Another way is simply to ask questions on areas that you feel are weak in the evolutionary side (see the Tricia's posts in the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000557" target="_blank">"evolution a religion?"</a> thread).

If you are sincere, you'll be treated sincerely. If you aren't - well, you'll get what you deserve, just like randman. I'd personally rather spend my time either explaining or discussing evidence - not beating up crass trolls.

My 10 kopeks.

[edited late 'cause I realized I'd spelled "nonsense" wrong. Sigh.]

[ June 06, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

DieToDeath

WGB, we have to keep in mind that people such as randman here CONTINUALLY repeat themselves. Over. And over. And over again. Until we're fed up with explaining to those morons how their theory is incorrect, and just ignore/mock them.