I wouldn’t be surprised- I just didn’t care. So what if it’s (math) infinitely small. We’re here - now. Don’t really remember giving a shit before being born.
Made up, and irrelevant, since it doesn’t remotely evidence any deity.
The odds against life existing are not lowered by the assumption, that an unevidenced deity from an archaic superstition used inexplicable magic to do it, rather than an as yet unknown natural phenomenon.
Natural phenomena having the advantage they exist as an objective fact, like life, and the universe, but unlike deities, which no one can demonstrate are even possible, let alone probable, or the ludicrous assumption they’re a more probable cause than things we know exist.
1 Like
The other problem here is that, if this deity did exist and he is in fact omnipotent, he could create the universe with any parameters he chooses. He could create the universe entirely out of marshmallows and it would be perfectly normal to us, since that would be our reality.
Then we’d also live in a universe where theists insist only a marshmallow universe could harbor life. 
1 Like
There was no mass or energy in the early universe. Since it takes positive energy to separate the two pieces of matter, gravity must be using negative energy to pull them together. Thus, “the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.” (Mass = Energy *Einstein)
3 Likes
I leave for a day and get back to see people accusing me of making things up… Oh well,
How about you get educated a bit and read Roger Penrose’s book (The Emperor’s New Mind) before making sweeping allegations. He explains how he reached this value.
Have you ever heard of the universal probability bound? From wikipedia:
A degree of improbability below which a specified event of that probability cannot reasonably be attributed to chance regardless of whatever probabilitistic resources from the known universe are factored in.
It is calculated to be 1 in 10^150 (although it got a new refined description in 2005 with the lower bound being 10^150), meaning this value is effectively ZERO chances. in other words 1 in 10^10^123 CANNOT be by chance… you know what are the Antonyms of chance? look up the dictionary:
Intent/plan/design/purpose
Do you happen to see any relevance now?
you make a bunch of other points I will try to address:
Sorry but this could be silliest thing I read today. Objective evidence cannot be achieved for two simple reasons:
- The evidence in science are nothing but our own subjective observation of natural patterns. We have no idea if these patterns will change and render all of our theories useless.
- Again, the people making the observations are subjective by definition, no person is objective. Even so, how can we know that our eyes are not deceiving us and we are recording wrong data?
Atleast be a bit honest and say that it is fallacious like :
You know people have lives and work outside atheistrepublic forum? Excusing myself doesnt necessitate running away 
Oh I don’t know if you made that up, I’m guessing you copied it from someone else. But that statistic is bullshit, that you can be sure.
1 Like
I didn’t say you’d made it up though did I? I simply agreed it was made up, maybe you should learn to read you pompous prig.
I note you also edited out the point of the sentence, which was that you have failed to show how that made up claim remotely evidences a deity?
Quelle surprise.
Except I never claimed that the universe or life originated through chance, that’s just an assumption you’ve made, misinterpreting atheism as a claim, as you no doubt don’t understand that disbelieving your unevidenced claim that the existence of everything becomes more probable if you make the unevidenced assumption that one deity from an archaic superstion did it all, with inexplicable magic, does not represent a claim.
Except you can’t even demonstrate any deity is even possible, whereas we know natural processes exist as an objective fact. Well, perhaps you don’t, as you appear to think objective facts don’t or can’t exist.
Hilarious, and an irony overload, oddly enough though your imbecilic claim reached my computer screen, almost as if the science behind the technology is objectively true. If the best justification for your belief is that all claims are subjective opinion, then I think debate is not for you.
Oh and I never said people were objective, I said the method was, again your remedial grasp of language has produced an hilarious straw man.
However you missed the point, let’s assume your moronic and erroneous denials of scientific fact were valid, just for the sake of argument of course…
This doesn’t remotely evidence any deity or anything supernatural. However the fact theists attack the best method for validating claims and ideas we have, because it contradicts parts of their archaic superstition is ample evidence of their blinkered bias. I note you’re happy to use the technology derived from science, without spotting the hypocrisy. Tell me do you consult a doctor when your ill, or is one opinion as good as another? 
You don’t know what fallacious means do you?
Yes that’s quite a common excuse as well.
Though paradoxically they arrive to a fanfare and ludicrous hubris, with claims of evidence for some deity or other. Then leave having failed to produce any objective evidence for their claim.
In some cases making the hilariously stupid assertion that objective evidence can’t exist. They hilariously fail to notice that this would of course reduce their own spiel to mere subjective opinion, no more valid that all the other superstitions, or even flat earthers.
Try this simple test, is the claim the earth is not flat, or at the centre of the universe mere opinion? Are you claiming the statement has no objective validity?
The ludicrous lengths theists go to, in order to preserve superstitious belief never fails to amaze.
1 Like
His grasp of English is on a par with his grasp of logic.
I love the way he is using a false dichotomy fallacy, while making spurious claims that his belief is rational.
Though this nowhere near as hilarious as him sawing the branch he’s sitting on, with his “there’s no such thing as objective evidence” claim.
He’s not the first to use this idiotic lie, and fail to notice it immediately reduces his spiel to mere subjective opinion.
Talk about an own goal…
1 Like
Here we go again,
And you provided nothing to support your claim. So naturally I would assume a personal attack on me.
Cool, so if we know it is not by chance then what are the antonyms of “chance”? Intent/plan/design/purpose. Exactly, this universe was designed, it was planned and it was intended to be this way. Glad we agree on this point. At least we have a basis to work on.
Dont you think a design with this (extreme) precision requires a designer? Saying otherwise would mean you simply being dishonest.
LOL, “your claim reached my screen, therefore science behind this tech is objectively true.” How about you reread my reply and read a bit more about objectivity.
Actually it makes my argument a lot stronger. Atheists arent looking for “objective evidence” because they accept that everything is subjective in their lives. Therefore the main reason they refuse to believe in God is a subjective (probably emotional) reason.
A method which depends on subjective mediums is inherently subjective. You claimed that the scientific method requires objective evidence… read again my reply, I say objective evidence doesnt exist.
“Just for the sake of argument because I cannot defend my position” Thats how I see this statement to be honest.
Yes, I am happy to use technology based on fallacious subjectively evidenced science because I am not looking for something that is objective, unlike you;
You need to realize the hypocrisy in your question before using the technology derived from fallacious subjectively evidenced science. Requiring me to give you objective evidence is plain contradiction from your side.
Definition of fallacious
embodying a fallacy
I dont know how you reached this conclusion and no reason for me to defend myself anyways.
This is a subjective observation which (most) people agree on. Also a claim being subjective doesnt mean it is necessarily wrong. It just means that it has not been objectively evidenced.
I will take it as a compliment 
You are the one claiming that science is objectively evidenced and I simply debunked it.
idiotic lie? seems to describe your statement about objectively evidenced science.
I see this discussion is going nowhere as I see a great level of dishonesty from you. Be honest and admit that all claims (including scientific) are subjective so that we can have a conversation. Otherwise we will be running around in circles and this conversation is futile.
Lol 
. Sheldon will reply, no doubt - BUT I must say…
As a theist, with a particular mindset, you have a black/white POV. In other words you naturally assume the opposite position if someone says something that is not in complete agreement.
You just straw-manned Sheldon.
He is not claiming either. Get it?
Your mind goes to “design” because your words “ …if we know it is not by chance…” BUT we do not know.
Calculating a probability does not negate the existence of NOR does it increase the existence of in your case a designer. There is no demonstrable evidence of said “designer”.
1 Like
Oh my precious, my precious!
Calculating the probability in this case leaves “the existence of a designer” as the only plausible explanation. Deciding to take or refuse this explanation is up to you, but it is the ONLY explanation
YOU see … the discussion is going nowhere because Sheldon is not accepting your struggle to somehow “create an equality” between your subjective, Bronze Age beliefs without demonstrable evidence AND the scientific method which specifically describes and categorizes the material universe and world to a high level of scrutiny, evidences, repeatability…etc
This is honest of Sheldon. A poor perception of character assessment from you. IN FACT, let’s look at the word “dishonest” (intended to mislead or cheat; behaving or prone to behave in an untrustworthy or fraudulent way).
Wayyyy back in post number
It’s pretty simple. As close as humanly possible the scientific method has demonstrably evidenced the earth is “round” (more a:
… humans can get pretty specific and precise with communicating information with each other (when necessary).
What is your idea of objective? (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts). YOU entered this discussion with a bias, and all that has been asked or stated is objective evidence. Evidence NOT influenced by bias. VERY IMPORTANT-
Some science papers have had fraudulent “evidence” to back the thesis claim …AND other scientists important using the scientific method discovered the fraud.
Are you taking this out of context just to, again, try to “equalize” your ideas.
Your beliefs can be beliefs. Goody for you- BUT when you start to claim them as a “reality” you better be prepared to demonstrate evidences.
2 Likes
It wasn’t my claim, do learn to read. I note again you ignore the point I did make. That it doesnt remotely evidence any deity, it is in fact a false dichotomy fallacy you’ve used…
Either your imaginary deity using magic, or the universe came about by improbable odds through chance. So also a straw man fallacy.
Well bare assumption does seem to be your default position here.
Oh dear, where did I make that claim? You are in pretty common company among theists who come here is not understanding that not believing something to be true, is not a belief it is false.
Was it? When can we expect you to demonstrate something approaching objective evidence for this claim? Or is your used of false dichotomy fallacy all you have, “impropable chance or god”? Or will you move on to the equally popular argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy that theists seem to find erroneously compelling?
Do stop saying we, I want no part of your irrational and unevidenced leaps of faith.
Are you saying the science that explains the technology used isn’t true? I’m going to stick with the claims that can demonstrate objective evidence to support them.
Why bother, you claimed objectivity doesn’t exist. Though what this has to do with you denying scientific fact isn’t clear? You deny evolution out if bias, because it contradicts an archaic superstion’s holy book, that you insist is infallible. Again I’ll stick with scientific facts, since these are supported by sufficient objective evidence.
If your ludicrous claim that “objective evidence doesn’t exist”, were true, it would ipso facto mean your claims were mere subjective opinion. That means you have no objective criteria for belief or disbelief. A common flaw in all theistic arguments I’ve encountered.
Do you deny all scientific facts? Or just the ones like evolution that destroy creation myths, like the ones in the bible and koran? That’s pretty obvious bias.
That’s a lie, since I am an atheist, and have stayed my criteria for belief is that sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated to support any claim. Theistic claims never are.
Another lie, you’re doubling down on your mendacity now, it’s starting to have a whiff of trolling.
Ah you want to skip past your previous sophistry, and move the goal posts. Ok I’ll spare your blushes, the scientific method is designed to counter subjective bias, that’s why it has succeeded so spectacularly in expanding human understanding exponentially in just a few hundred years, unlike religion which is stuck cling blindly to unevidenced myths.
Why would I need to read your denial of scientific facts again? It is as ludicrously idiotic now as it was then, repetition went change that. You also haven’t addressed the fact that your idiotic denials and misrepresentations of the scientific method don’t remotely evidence any deity.
So you recognise your claim doesn’t evidence any deity, but lack the integrity to even address the fact. Your sophistry might work on gullible sheeple, but the posters here tend to examine claims and reject bias.
NB I don’t need to defend the scientific method against your idiotic and erroneous denials, take it up with science. Though what method you’d use is baffling, since you’ve sawn the branch of objective evidence away, so your superstition is, as I pointed out not advanced one iota by your vapid attacks on science?
Sadly you don’t seem to want to address that, though I’m not surprised.
Thank you, I appreciate the indirect compliment. Care to explain how technology is being advanced exponentially by the application of the scientific method, if it based as you ludicrously claim, on mere subjective opinion?
Religions by comparison and other superstitions have had hundreds of thousands of years, and failed to demonstrate anything comparable?
Yes it must be a real drag when others won’t simply accept your unevidenced and idiotic attacks on science. Sadly debate has disagreement in the definition, and your moronic claim is directly contradicted by the demonstrable success of the scientific method. More importantly your ludicrous claim doesn’t remotely evidence your superstitious beliefs. Something you seem keen to avoid addressing.
No that’s another lie, the contradiction is your claim, not mine. Did you think everyone would simply accept your spiel prima facie? Theists often don’t recognize argument from assertion fallacies.
So you just lied then, and falsely labelled Nyarlathotep’s post as fallacious?
Care to explain the fallacy? You know, evidence your claim for a change.
Well you sought out an atheist forum, make endless unevidenced claims, and fallacious arguments, like your false dichotomy fallacy “god or improbable chance.”
One assumes you care whether your verbiage is believed, or are you just trolling? If it’s the latter, then no, you’d have no reason to defend your performance at all.
You’re saying the shape of the earth, and it’s position in the universe is a matter of subjective opinion?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah…
Priceless…
Yes I know what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is thank you.
How do you know the claim the world is not flat or at the centre of the universe, is valid? You are claiming it might not be, and we have no objective way of knowing?
Are you saying that one opinion is as valid as another? If objective evidence is impossible what is your criteria for deciding?
Also are you Apollo, using a new username? He made the same hilarious claim, it’s still funny as fuck.
So is the world flat or not? Be a dear and tell us how you know your answer is correct, or if you don’t know of course?
You must do as you are minded. It doesn’t change the point I made.
No science claims this, it’s inherrant in the method, and no you didn’t debunk anything obviously, how could you as all you can offer is your subjective opinion, as that’s all that exists according to you. The hilarity of how stupid the claim is might have escaped you of course, but the rationale is quite obviously an epistemological cul de sac which you’ve run into with a rather hilarious fanfare.
You still haven’t explained how this evidences your superstitious belief? I’m guessing that won’t change.
Wow, a playground taunt, impressive.
No you did…
You’re the one denying scientific facts, and claiming the entire scientific world is wrong, not me, and by your own admission based on nothing but your own opinion. I’m happy for others to decide which position is idiotic.
Well your almost right, it’s going nowhere because you not only have no objective evidence for any deity, you are insisting nomobjective facts exist, you’re even claiming the shape of the earth is based solely on subjective opinion.
Where are you claiming I’ve been dishonest? I think this is another puerile tit for tat responses because I pointed out the dishonesty in some of your claims.
I don’t believe that, and you’ve offered nothing beyond your own opinion for the claim, indeed your rationale means only subjective opinion exists. So you’re being dishonest suggesting anything is dishonest, the concept can’t exist if all opinions are valid.
It’s also asinine to claim I’m being dishonest for not accepting your ludicrous claim is true, when I have repeatedly shown I don’t believe it, and why. Accepting it would therefore be the very definition of dishonest.
Yes this is also a common excuse theists make before they leave, it’s all the fault of atheists that they won’t simply accept your unevidenced opinions and fallacious arguments.
I anticipate an imminent flounce, nor am I anticipating a sudden and incongruous display of integrity from you before you leave.
I’ll also bet my house my questions you have this far evaded, will remain unanswered…even as you falsely accuse me of dishonesty…
Anyway I’ve troed to support my arguments, as everyone can see for themselves, but If as you keep claiming only opinion exists, then why can’t I just offer an unevidenced contrary one to yours? As of course you have done throughout.
- Multiple Universe
- Simulation
- Cyclic Universe
- The existence of zero energy (as described by Einstein read some @Cognostic posts)
- I am just an electron with an awareness, physically living my dream
Just a few. I get tired of farting fairy godmothers or a horny deity jacking-off.
A false dichotomy fallacy. Though I’d love to see your calculations for the probability of something you can’t evidence, or even demonstrate is possible, and you even claim is solely your opinion?
You are funny. Though not original, as this asinine nonsense has been championed here before.
Now, is the shape of the earth based solely on subjective opinion?
It’s a yes or no question, but do take your time…
1 Like
Lol this is a never ending loop of strawmen you are presenting me with like:
I never said that, I said science is subjectively evidenced… do you even know what subjective means?
A proposition is objective if it is independent of you as an observer. A proposition is subjective if it is dependent on you as an observer. Since our observations in science is “dependent” on our own senses as observers, it means that all our observations are inherently subjective.
I did not deny or claim science is wrong, I simply said it is not objective by any stretch of the imagination , Not being objective doesnt mean it is false or not useful. I also said that any scientific experiment is fallacious as one can easily point multiple logical fallacies in the derived conclusions of any experiment.
No point in continuing if you cant get past this simple idea.
Everything you list requires the existence of a designer to explain
Oh dear…
Nonsense, it’s my opinion that the world is not flat, but it’s not solely my opinion. You seem unable to see the difference, I’ll give you a clue, it’s objective evidence, validated by objective methods, like science.
Oh dear…
Does hoax mean something else to you, than it does to me? Or are you saying the entire scientific world shares your opinion that the cornerstone of the field of biology, not to mention the entirety of global medical research, is based on a hoax?
Another opinion the entire scientific world does not share.
Not that it matters, since this latest asinine errancy is just a bare unevidenced opinion.
And of course, yet again it doesn’t remotely evidence any deity.
You have an odd notion of debate, but then you have expressed far odder notions, than the absurd idea debate is pointless unless we all accept your unevidenced opinions.
Do you find that type of vapid bullying works often in debate?
Well that’s just a bare unevidenced opinion, but look who I’m telling.
Though if I’m being pedantic, and I am of course, your unevidenced deity doesn’t have any explanatory powers, just endless assumptions you’re happy to make. By the way making unevidenced assumptions about the very thing your arguing for, in those arguments, is called a begging the question fallacy.
I was wondering, in between your threats implying you’ll end the discussion if we don’t accept your unevidenced opinion as fact, are you ever going to address the fact that all your arguments this far have been based on or contain known common logical fallacies?
1 Like
Uh, wait. What?
This forum is getting dangerous for my furniture. I almost peed myself, laughing.
I have debated/argued with flat earthers at length elsewhere, but not even mindboggingly stubborn and stupid flerfers are moronic enough to call the shape of the earth a subjective observation.
Priceless.
2 Likes