Yeah, if things were different; they’d be different. It isn’t exactly profound. The problem is you don’t know anything about what other values it might have been; maybe it had to have that exact value, or maybe it could have had any value; you don’t know and neither does anyone else. You only have one example to extrapolate from. It is nuts, imo.
2 Likes
It’s another appeal to mystery, a god of the gaps polemic, an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy etc etc etc. we don’t know X, it seems mysterious, therefore goddddd…
Yeah well god only made one, so there…
Then we can’t use probability to reason about it. 
What can I tell you, god is mysterious and won’t be tested… 
LOL… Just saying… We have also found life in the darkest, deepest, most frozen, parts of the planet. (Things that make you say, “Hmmmmmm?”)
1 Like
Praise the lord, for he is wonderous in his workings, amen… 
1 Like
Just adding to this…
A God that won’t be tested is no different from a god that isn’t there. If you are claiming to know something about a god that can not possibly be tested in any way, you are claiming to know the unknown. You have absolutely no basis for such knowledge. You are therefore a liar or delusional. Put very simply, you can not know something that you can not know.
1 Like
You’re just ignoring the evidence because you can’t prove your heathen atheism.
God knows, that’s good enough for me…
I have god…
Nope, just a poor sinner, loved by Jesus…
I know god exists because because he tells me sooooooo. yessss jeeezuz luvs meeeee, yessssss jezuz luvvvvs me, yessss jezuz luvs me…the by-bllllll tell-zzzz meeeee sow…
no more wine for me I think…
1 Like
Respectfully, they are not mutually exclusive.
I have known several who possessed both “talents”…I think it could be argued that in some instances, delusional thinking is a form of lying to oneself.
Edit (trousers ablaze)
1 Like
It’s probably a waste of time introducing you to this, though others here will appreciate my doing so … VSEPR theory accounts for this, based upon a combination of electrostatic and Pauli exclusion repulsion of electrons.
Indeed, even the Wikipedia page on the topic covers this, viz:
Science once again teaches us that there are rational explanations in terms of testable natural processes for whatever you’re gullible enough to think is a “mystery” that needs a cartoon magic man to “explain”.
You could have found out about this yourself through 30 seconds of Google searching. But no, you chose instead to play dishonest apologetics with science.
Got any more canards to amuse us with?
2 Likes
And they say you don’t tug on Superman’s cape
You don’t spit into the wind
You don’t pull the mask off the ole Lone Ranger
and you don’t mess around with Calilasseia
1 Like
Yep. And the amount of literature in the Pali Canon is at least 30 times that of the New Testament (let alone the Old) with a “self-consistency” that puts the followers of Jesus to shame.
I’ve read boat loads of early Buddhist texts and have yet to find any number of compelling contradictions which might cast doubt on the inner consistency of the teachings.
No one has to believe the teachings of Buddhism, but if (@WhoAreYou) you’re interested in a litany of teachings which give a wide range of ideas without contradictions, read Buddhism.
Seriously bud. The Buddha lived at least 500 years before JZ. He gives you practical advice on how to escape suffering. If you’re gunna be a religious fanatic, then expand your horizons a little.
Hey, if all roads lead back to Jesus, then what have you got to lose. Start here:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/
Get your head out of that Christian balcony. I was indoctrinated in it from birth to the day I turned away at 16. I followed science into University and stumbled upon the Buddhist section at my Alma Mater Library.
Didn’t Newton say that the assumption with the inverse square law which “bothered” him was that one had to imagine all of the celestial body’s mass at its centre?
That seems to imply that we are all lying. Fuck you.
1 Like
never mind 
Neither claim is objectively true, and this is the very definition of a circular reasoning fallacy.
No we don’t, and if any deity exists at all, then no living person knows what that deity looks like.
This is demonstrably a lie. One wonders what you hope to achieve by such a blatant lie?
An unevidenced claim, and it is directly contradicted by the objective fact of species evolution.
How is your subjective lie “objective evidence”?
This is objectively untrue.
An obvious lie, and grammatically offensive even without the random capital letter.
That’s not what true means, what you are describing is immutable not true. You know you can Google these words right?
What a spectacularly and obviously false assertion. I can only marvel at the stupidity of such an obviously false, and of course irrational claim, since it is clearly an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
That is not what truth means. It is the quality or state of being true. True means in accordance with fact or reality. So present a fact in accordance with reality that demonstrates any deity or anything supernatural is possible, let alone exists…
Meaningless and unevidenced platitude.
Well you have failed to offer any objective evidence for any deity, but again how does your string of unevidenced claims challenge that hypothetical? You seem to have ignored my question?
1 Like
Blind assertion bereft of any supporting evidence. Your cartoon magic man is only asserted to exist, and within the pages of a goat herder mythology littered with farcical errors about the natural world at that.
No it isn’t. Another bullshit assertion.
Oh wait, 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 350 years. As a direct corollary, cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.
Indeed, every time a fantastic magic supernatural entity has been asserted to be “necessary” to explain an entity or interaction in the natural world, scientists have later discovered that this isn’t the case, and that testable natural processes suffice. Lightning? Once thought to be angry gods of one sort or another letting us know they’re displeased with us. Later found to be nothing more than static electricity. Earthquakes? Found to be the result of plate tectonics. Volcanoes? Likewise found to be the result of plate tectonics. Biodiversity? Found to be the product of evolution, not a cartoon magic man poofing things into existence (and Genesis 1 gets the appearance of taxa completely arse about face).
Indeed, scientists have alighted upon vast classes of entities and interactions, that the authors of your favourite mythology were incapable of even fantasising about. Those same scientists have placed said classes of entities and interactions into usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge, of a sort that the authors of pre-scientific mythologies would have regarded as magic. The authors of your favourite mythology knew nothing of the existence of five major continental land masses on this planet, and if you live on one of those continental land masses, this should be a source of embarrassment to you.
Of course, we see all the time here, mythology fanboys treating science dishonestly as a branch of apologetics, but it’s long since overdue for you to learn that it isn’t. When we have experimental data informing us that various postulates are correct, we’re not dealing with apologetic fabrications, but genuine evidence.
Oh, and don’t bother pretending that evidence of the requisite sort hasn’t been presented to you, this will simply earn you even more scorn and derision than you’ve already received.
1 Like
I can’t help noting that you have posted after this question, but ignored it, now why would that be?
I also note that you didn’t address this at all, can you explain why? Otherwise the inference is that you are dishonestly ignoring it, and please don’t lie about not having sufficient time, as you clearly had time to continue to peddle your superstitious wares, so the inference is that you’re here to preach…and not debate.
…and this is a debate forum.
FWIW I am not discouraging anyone from staying here to debate, quite the opposite.
DEBATE? Where is the ‘Debate?’ Hitchen’s Razor asserts the inane babbling bullshit that is asserted out one’s ass without evidence can be wiped away in the same manner it was presented. No debate required. Has ‘Who Are You’ offered anything at all worthy of debate? Anything?
I too enjoy a good debate… When is this one going to start?
1 Like