Sooooo… Just to be clear, you are saying if I have sex out of marriage with too many women, I could become sick AND possibly stop liking women? And even beyond that, you said…
So, if I fuck too many women, it could cause me to become a PEDOPHILE? Curious… … Is that what happened to Mohammad? He had to marry a nine year old girl and have sex with her because he had fucked too many adult women? Just trying to make sure I’m understanding this correctly. Moving right along…
Hmmm… … Well, ain’t that something?.. Fascinating… See, my wife and I had sex with each other long before we ever got married. And I can assure you there was ZERO intentions of having a child. Oddly enough, we have been HAPPILY married for almost ten years now. Oh, and we STILL have no intentions of having children, yet we continue to have sex quite often strictly for PLEASURE. Please explain, how in the world of your god is this possible? It’s almost as if we are defying the laws of your god. Not sure what to think about all of this. Cog! Old Man! Doc! I’m afraid I will be punished by Nogba’s god! Whatever shall I do???
I doubt that @Nogba is coming back, and if he does then he won’t be answering questions, he’s here to preach. Just take a look at his previous exchanges, just as he has done here, he ignores all questions and objections to his superstitious spiel.
HUH? Let’s see if we can cut though the garbage and break this down. What a confusing mess.
DOES GOD EXIST - Part 1
P1: If you touch fire, you will feel heat.
P2: There is an algorithm here> (HUH?) “a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer.” No set of rules exists. P2:(REJECTED)
A. The algorithm punishes anyone who plays with fire.
B. But it depends on how you conceive the feeling of fire. (So it might not be punishment at all?)
NOTHING ABOVE MAKES ANY SENSE…
Call what god?
But you said…
SO, it depends on how you conceive of this God thing.
OH GOOD, ANOTHER ANALOLGY: HOPEFULLY IT IS AS CLEAR AS THE LAST ONE.
P1: I am rich and I buy a castle. (It does not matter if there was a castle builder.)
P2: If I don’t follow the castle builder’s instructions, I will be hurt. (But what if there wasn’t a castle builder, as previously stated in P1. There would be no instructions to follow. Would I still be hurt?)
Really? How do you know the instructions are from a castle builder if you have not demonstrated the builder’s existence? Why would you follow the instructions if you did not know they came from the castle builder and not some practical joker?
How did you get from “Castle Building to fornication?” Have you been watching Sesame Street again?
WTF???
Complete nonsequitur. Thank you for sharing your inane opinions and rambling thoughts.
Well, you are certainly good at that. Congratulations!
Isn’t it interesting how the abstract and the insane are often very much alike?
The universe exists and we can work to understand it, therefore a god? I’d like to meet the person who taught you logic.
What is the difference between a god that can’t be measured, resides in a place that’s pointless to ask about (and has never been seen or independently verified, for that matter), and a god that doesn’t exist at all?
I don’t believe your unevidenced claim, not least because it is a circular reasoning fallacy. If you are positing a deity, and you clearly are, despite lying about that, then you cannot dodge any questions that ask you to objectively evidence said deity…
You need to objectively evidence a deity exists, or is even possible, before anyone need care to understand what is just a figment of human imagination.
Nothing science has helped us understand about the universe, evidences any deity, or that any deity is even possible.
Is there any other kind of universe? What a spectacularly stupid assertion…
A false equivalence fallacy, that you are determined not to address in any honest way.
I fear that “liar liar pants on fire” is going to become the only apropos response to your dishonest irrational mendacity, if you persist in this vein.
Now since you have dodged this question for three years, like a bad tinder date, I will ask again:
Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, or that any deity is even possible?
Each time you dodge this, the more clear it becomes you are a liar for your chosen archaic superstition.
Do you think your prophet raping a 9 year old girl, is moral? It’s a simple question, if you can’t evidence a deity, maybe you can at least grow a pair and answer that question.
I am glad the Kool Aid is to your taste. and just to ensure your continued “co-operation” did you not think that gods special servant split the moon in half precisely so he could see what was hiding behind it?
Now, go cover your head, take your daughters out of school and learn all the Sura by heart by sundown.
Ok, let’s see what comedy awaits us here, now that I have time to devote to the relevant trainwrecks …
Let’s see how kong it takes for your “answer” to consist of bad analogies and ex recto apologetic fabrications, shall we?
Well that didn’t take long.
Of course, to go into the intricate details of nociception will probably be way over your head, but at bottom, it’s chemistry. Chemistry that over evolutionary time has developed into data processing mechanisms whose behaviour can be represented by algorithms. However, that algorithmic representation omits the underlying physical underpinnings. But of course, mistaking mere representation for actuality is another well-documented aspect of the mythology fanboy aetiology.
I prefer to deal with reality, not fabrication. See above.
Again, I prefer to deal with reality, not fabrication.
Except that your cartoon magic man is merely asserted to exist, and in a mythology littered with farcical errors into the bargain.
Again, I prefer to deal with reality, not fabrication.
Bad analogies don’t “clarify”, they obfuscate. Which is why mythology fanboys are so fond of them.
Last time I checked, builders didn’t provide detailed instructions on how to operate a home. So already your analogy is failing pitifully.
See above for why your analogy is garbage.
Oh look, it’s the tired old recourse to Palaeolithic ignorance about sex.
In case you never learned this, people have sex all the time without malign consequences. We don’t even need to bring your imaginary cartoon magic man into the picture here, we simply need to pay attention to observational data.
Oh, and once again, why should we treat blind mythological assertions as fact, given that mythologies are demonstrably unreliable?
Why waste time with an entity that is merely asserted to exist, and for which we have ZERO genuine evidence? Here’s a hint for you: “my favourite mythology says so”, isn’t “evidence” for your cartoon magic man, it’s evidence for the propensity of the authors thereof to make shit up.
Until you succeed where every other mythology fanboy has failed, and provide genuine evidence for your cartoon magic man, all your assertions on this subject are discardable, and can be tossed into the bin with the same lack of effort you exerted in presenting them.
If this is true, doesn’t this render religious mythologies superfluous to requirements and irrelevant?
I can tell you never thought very hard about this.
So what? How does this observation support the assertion that a magic man in the sky exists?
Until you provide genuine evidence yhat the so-called “afterlife” is anything other that mythological fabrication, this assertion of yours can also be safely discarded.
And failed dismally.
I have yet to see anything in your output that deserves to be dignified with the word “thought”.
I wonder what other collapsed intellectual soufflés you’ll serve up here? I’ll ignore your obvious garbage about sex, as it’s beneath deserving of a point of view, but let’s move on to some of your other gibberish, shall we?
Once again, until you provide genuine evidence that your cartoon magic man actually exists, all your assertions on this matter can be tossed into the bin, with the same lack of effort you exerted when presenting them.
Oh, and by the way, you’re treading here into territory that’s the remit of intricate and deep research in cosmological physics. Which I suspect you are woefully ill equipped to understand.
Merely another safely discardable blind and unsupported assertion. Are you ever going to provide something better than this?
Your apologetics os certainly going nowhere.
Laughable nonsense.
In case you never learned this, several million peer reviewed scientific papers document in exquisite detail, the evidence that testable natural processes are SUFFICIENT to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past centuries, and as a corollary, that cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Indeed, as the diligent here are already aware, I’ve covered relevant research in cosmological physics in some detail here, and as a corollary, am in a position to deal with infantile blind assertions from a position of substance.
Already explained why your analogy is garbage.
Funny how real builders never bother with this step. The possibility that people know how to operate a home is something they learned by observation over 18 years before attaining adulthood apparently never occurred to you.
Oh look, he’s wheeled out the failed “watchmaker” apologetic drivel that’s been shredded so often. Wondered when this feculent bilge would put in an appearance.
In case you never noticed, I devoted an entire thread to the dishonesty of “design” apologetics. But mythology fanboys never bother asking themselves if their drivel has already been shelled to oblivion when they come here.
No. it’s the product of evolution, and evolution is a mindless process. Though not as mindless as your apologetics.
No. Is that answer plain and simple enough for you?
Meanwhile, the drivel continues … let’s hose it with some discoursive ordnance shall we?
Blind assertion and nothing more. Like all your other unsupported blind assertions, this one can be tossed into the bin without further ado.
Every piece of wibbling about a cartoon magic man by idiot mythology fanboys means nothing. It’s made up shot, the lot of it.
Apparently you’re blissfully unaware that you’ve not just opened a can of cosmological physics worms with your ignorant assertions, but an entire cannery thereof.
Mythology fanboys like you have never provided an atom of genuine evidence, that there’s a cartoon magic man to “understand”. On the other hand, we have plenty of evidence informing us that [1] our surroundings are the product of testable natural processes, not magic poofing by a cartoon magic man and [2] religious mythologies are all made up shit.
You mean the universe you plainly don’t understand, and within which your brain clearly doesn’t work?
Which is horseshit. I dealt with that drivel above.
Isn’t dealing with mythology fanboy gibberish so fucking tedious at times? Getting through the concrete of obstinacy lining their heads is like trying to push half a pound of sunflower spread into a hedgehog’s arse with a red hot knitting needle.
So not dissimilar to the theistic penchant for equating descriptive scientific terms as if they are proscriptive. A whole smorgasbord of false equivalence fallacies, that apologists have been taught to parrot, like a seal doing the same tricks over and over. “Laws require a law giver” or “fine tuning” or “DNA code” or “the appearance of design”.
Then of course there are the flat out untrue claims, like “complexity can’t evolve if it involves random events”. You’d think they’ve never seen a set of dice.
If asking where God came from means nothing, that what are we to believe about God creating the Universe? Saying that God created the Universe has no explanitory value, so this is the same thing as your objection.
Your statement is another religious double-standard.
An unevidenced claim about a deity, in an argument for a deity, circular reasoning using a begging the question fallacy, ipso facto irrational…by definition.
Whereas inquiries about the origins of everything else are apropos? This one is called a special pleading fallacy, again your reasoning is irrational by definition.
Another begging the question fallacy to create circular reasoning, so again irrational by definition.
Do I need to explain that arguments that are demonstrably irrational are weak and poorly reasoned? Or the obvious inference of holding a belief based on irrational arguments?
We know the universe exists as an objective fact, and we know natural phenomena exist as an objective fact, we have no objective evidence a deity or anything supernatural is even possible.
You have yet to demonstrate a deity is objectively possible, or accurately define the deity you imagine to be real, beyond broad begging the question fallacies. Your castle analogy was a false equivalence fallacy, as I explained already, since we know humans design and create things, and can objectively evidence that fact. It’s just a variation of Paley’s watchmaker fallacy.
If the human body is what you see as evidence of a designer, you need to think again … consider sex (our genitals) and human waste disposal. We get pleasure from sex, right? Human males also rid themselves of waste through the same organ.
Now ask yourself the question, “What kind of engineer would run a waste disposal facility through a pleasure park?” To my mind not a competent one, so what does that say about this god of yours?
There are many other aspects of the human body that don’t tally with the concept of a competent designer. Vision, for example … why can humans not see 360 degrees around as well as above and below them? I don’t mean simply by orienting our heads; I mean all the time. Why is human vision limited to the colour range it is? Why can’t we see ultraviolet frequencies or infrared or x-rays? Why are we so easy to damage? There are a hundred other questions I might route back to someone if they had actually designed our bodies.
The simple fact is that the human body clearly shows its jury-rigged nature and equally clearly shows that it is adapted from earlier ancestors and not designed by someone or something.
The tendency to pull what they consider valid and reasonable beliefs completely out of their ass, no evidence necessary, explains every religion and their many offshoots.
Boiling sugar water has the sucrose molecules oriented every which way at random, yet when we turn off the heat and put a wooden stick in this solution, sugar crystalizes into neat, monoclinic rows . . . so we have order from randomness, and this happens when we stop adding heat. Also, this process does not violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as is often claimed by theists when they are doing apologetics.
… Is that what happened to Mohammad? He had to marry a nine year old girl and have sex with her because he had fucked too many adult women? Just trying to make sure I’m understanding this correctly. Moving right along…
