yup

I just wanted to sincerely thank you for that

Sadly, you are one of the few intelligent atheists.

Most just reply with some banter such as: "IF GOD EXIST WHY KIDS DIE IN AFRIKA? WHERE YOUR GOD NOW?"

I salute thee.

That's definitely new to me

I like the way your friend explained that.

I like that very much, I'm gonna talk about that way of seeing it with my boyfriend. I'm an agnostic, but he's a christian (actually aspiring to be a priest), and we talk about god and stuff all the time.

how do you overcome evil when you are being bombed in the name of some god?

But is it really free will if it's already been predetermined

Calvinists

Don't know if anyone else knows this, but you guys do realize that Satan is still a hand of god.
God had 2 hands through which many things were done, Michael, the Right Hand of God (Dexterity, and therefore the right hand is holy), and Lucifer, the Left hand (Sinister, the left hand is unholy, hence why children used to be trained to be righty).
But yes, Lucifer was cast out, yaddi yada yada.
Satan can't do anything without God's permission, anything that Satan did, was in order to help the world. He gave eve the apple, and gave free will, which God has supported since then, he tempted Jesus, was in reality the temptation that all men would go through in their lives.
He did some other thigns that I can't remember off the top of my head.

TLDR - Satan still acts on God's orders, but is seen as the outcome of secular ideals.

I think that Satan is free to ask god to do things, God doesn't entirely give him orders, just yes or no, I believe, I may be wrong

Lucifer was mentioned once in the bible, and was attributed to being a Proto-Satan. In reality, it was just early Christians throwing out a name to directly slander a diety older than Christianity itself.

Next time you speak with that friend of yours ask him the following question.

If God is almighty and allknowing ... then how come he didn't know Adam and Eve will take the apple , how come he didn't know that an angel will fall and become Satan?Unless that was his first intention.

He would have known.
He would have known that Adam and Eve would have gone to the tree and taken the fruit.
He also knew that Satan would rebel against him
While these things are unfortunate, it is because he gave man and hosts free will
This free will is used to create the option of Love or not
That's all the Creator wanted, is to love and be loved.

'That's all the Creator wanted, is to love and be loved.'

Contradicts your whole statement, why didn't he just create humans with free will but without the option for evil deeds if he just wanted everyone to love and be loved. If he was all knowing and had the option to create everything that we know, why didn't he just give us the ability to distinguish love and friendship and remove the ability to commit evil deeds?

But then why would they say that he protects people and watches over them? Not being a prick, honestly trying to understand the insanity.

I was led to believe that atheists chose to disprove God. While Agnostics were the ones that chose to not believe in him at all. Pic unrelated.

Not at all. Atheism is the belief there is no god. It's just us and the rest of the universe, everything happened by itself for some unknown reason.

Agnosticism is saying, "Hmm, this is all really weird. How did all this happen? Could there have maybe been someone who made all of this? I just don't know!" Agnosticism is just sitting on the fence, mainly because there is no proof of a god or proof there is no god.

It is sad and unfortunate that the killer or rapist imposes his sick and twisted will onto the others, but if there will is stopped there is no will

i thought it was lucifer that granted free will

So God should've gave us less free will then?

Free will is needed
if you put a gun to someones head and say "tell me you love me or else i'll shoot you"
their response of "i love you" means nothing
All he wants is to love and be loved, it's up to each individual to reciprocate the feeling and do their best to spread that love

i think the problem here was "perfect beings" with the desire to murder. surely an all powerful god could just remove that desire. not the desire to rape though, its clear he likes kinky stuff.

Then what's the point of calling him God if he can't stop these things.

If he's all powerful and can do anything and everything, why can't he just force a wall to erupt from the ground and start beating the shit out of the rapist? If he makes something happen which would prevent the rape, without actually just going into the rapists mind and making him go "actually i dont think i want to rape this kid bye now", then there's still free will.
I have free will, supposedly, and I'm using it to write this comment, but if right at this moment something came to prevent me from typing it without actually controlling my mind, I'd still have free will.
Preventing a rape =/= Infringing on people's free will

double standard dude

and who is to say that whatever "God" or divine spirit or whatever hasn't already prevented a shitload of rapes from happening?

like what if theres billions of opportunities to get raped every second that hang in the balance but since the opportunities allow for such a small, insignificant probabiity, the rapes almost never occur?

Well if i gave you the option to get a hundred dollar bill, but i handcuffed you to a cement block and taped the hundred dollar bill to the ceiling, could i say you didn't want the hundred dollars.
An immediate and clear hand of interference with someone's actions is an impeding of free will.
There are some acceptable things that we could see happening, like getting a better offer to do something else, A friend advising you not to do it and that its a bad idea, or just having a bad feeling about it.

But you're not impeding my free will. I can still try to get it. Just because something becomes extremely difficult, that doesn't mean it impedes my free will to do so.
I wouldn't be able to get the 100$ bill, that doesn't mean my free will to do so is non-existent. If you wanted to impede my free will, you'd have to alter my mind or sub-conscious, essentially controlling my mind, to do so.
If I want to build an under-ground base in the moon's core, I still have the free-will to do so.
Just because there's almost 0 chance of it happening, that doesn't mean I don't have the free will to do it.

oh okay, lets follow these rules:
punishment for fortune telling - death
punishment for hitting a parent - death
punishment for cursing a parent - death
punishment for not listening to a priest - death
punishment for following another religion - death
punishment for adultery - death
punishment for not seeking the lord god of Israel - death
punishment for fornication - death
punishment for prophesising falsely - death
punishment for homosexuality - death
punishment for blasphemy - death
punishment for working on the sabbath - death
punishment for having non believers in the town - death to the whole town
punishment for rape - 50 shekels to the father for his new wife.
chose the bible's punishments but since intelligent design "theory" could point to any religion with a creator, could easily use the Quran

Um, don't know if you realize this, but Islam and Christianity are both evolutions of Judaism.

i knew Christianity, but Islam i was unaware of descending from Judaism. i wasnt sure if Muhammad had endorsed the OT as jesus did.

Ok, so this is the run down on Islam
Islam was created by Muhammad
No one knows what religion Muhammad was before he created Islam, but it is most likely he was Jewish
He went and prayed and found god
Told his wife and his cousin, they became the first Muslims
Muhammad turned each message he received from God into a page in the Qu'Ran
Islam still believes in Jewish and Christian prophets, they think Jesus was just a prophets
They think that over the years Christianity and Judaism fell away from the teachings of god, and that what that Qu'Ran is, is word for word, what God wants, because it has never been changed, you can look at a copy as it was written 1000 years ago, and it will be the same as a copy printed yesterday, word for word.
Also, if you are Muslim, you MUST KNOW ARABIC, purely because the Qu'Ran is ONLY IN ARABIC, you can get English translations, german, french, etc. But they will be translations of the Qu'Ran, not a Qu'Ran, not like you can have an English Bible, German Bible, etc.
This is because the Qu'Ran is the recording of what god said, and what it said was in Arabic.

Many things in Islam are similar to Judaism, to the point where the two are closer than Judaism and Christianity
Such things include
- NO PORK
- very strict on alcohol (to the point Islam doesn't allow it at all)
- No work during prayer (for Jews this is the Sabbath, for Muslims this is 5 times of prayer a day)
- Religious holidays that are to be done a specific way
- Reverence/disgust of the menstrual cycle
- Similar calendars
- Holy books are in the native language
- Circumcision (it doesn't matter whether you think it is genital mutilation or not, that's just how the religions work)
- Modesty of Women

and when Muhammad was 50 he had sex with a 9 year old. isnt religion wonderful

No he didn't, pedophilia is actually looked down upon in Islam as much as in Christianity or any other religion.
Things like that come into play like that is a cultural thing, a manipulation of the laws that is in one area.

are you saying lady Ayesha was not in the Quran?

1 - The age of Ayesha is disputed, I have seen things that have said she was anywhere from 8-15 (13 and above was common marriage age given the time), with most of the things I had seen before I did a google search right now saying she was like 12+
2 - As for why he did it, it was again one of those cultural things that doesn't mix with religion, like Christianity, we are supposed to respect Jewish laws, follow what Jesus did, he didn't eat pork, yet Christians do, because that was a cultural thing and cattle domestication wasn't common place in Europe at that point.

this is where religion falls down. according to the quran Ayesha was married at 6 and had sex at 9 AND was married at 13 and had sex later. i would go with what the Quran actually says.

Those rules concern the Jewish laws of the old covenant and were not really considered God's laws, but a set of fence laws set up by the pharisees, to protect people from breaking the core laws.
These things were undone, along with a lot of other things, when Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for all sins.
Also it's important to note that these sentences could be undone with a repentance. Like during the Salem witch trials, if you apologized for being a witch and chose to repent of your wickedness you'd get off the hook with a slap on the wrist.

so the fact that Jesus came to forfill the laws, and shouted at his host when taking dinner (in reply to the host confronting jesus about not observing their eating rituals) about not killing his children when they disobeyed him, thats just not relevant?

I like it when people quote Leviticus. It tells me they're atheist because it's cool, not because they actually understand the religion and choose to not believe it.

also, one other thing. how does religion work? is it not by following the orders of your god so as to maximize the chances of going to heaven?

It works basically as you accepting God into your heart and your life. After that you are generally good. The good deeds and not sinning is just a way to keep yourself out of trouble, how to help others, and how to spread the love around. You can't gain any favor or lose any, everybody is loved the same.

yeah like this guy.

I don't know about any other religion, but as for Christianity, there is no "Maximizing your chances." You're either getting in or you're not, and there isn't a complicated rule set to follow either.

if you don't follow your god's rules you go to hell

No.
If you're not perfect, you go to hell.

Should I continue and explain, or will you just ignore me and go on throwing out Leviticus and Deuteronomy verses to paint Christianity as "bad?"

It doesn't matter if you are perfect or not. Once you truly accept God into your heart you are in, if the apostle Paul can do it then anyone can and he killed thousands of Christians before finding God.

"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48 That's right from Jesus himself.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
-John 3:16

You took that verse to literally, Jesus was trying to say to strive to perfection as God is perfect, not "You only get to heaven if you are perfect"

oh so we're all going to hell, awesome.

you may continue, as long as you know of the NT bad parts.

There are no bad parts of the New Testament.

Here's how you go to heaven: Be perfect in God's eyes. Unfortunately, by ourselves, that's impossible, so yes, you're technically correct. We're all going to hell.

However, thanks to Jesus living a perfect life and sacrificing himself for us, we become perfect through him, and are allowed into heaven.

The only thing we have to do is believe that Jesus did just that for us, and that he is the only true God. Everything else? Details.

no bad parts aye? skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

jesus came to for fill the law.

so in your opinion we should ignore jesus and throw out the ot?
most people are atheist because it's rational, reasonable and logical.

The Old Testament laws are not applicable anymore.

Some people are atheist because they know the different religions and choose not to believe in any of them. That's respectable.

Most people don't know anything about any religion, and are just atheist because "HURR CONTRADICTIONS LOL."

So far you've fallen into the latter of the two.

oh atheists, most of them, it's true have not really thought about it and naturally come to a scientific way of thinking.

atheism will always be misrepresented, like being a religion or hating an imaginary character.

some people however, are atheist because of the lack of evidence for any sort of creator, and believe religion does far more harm than good.

Just like a child has the free will to be murdered?
Just like a child has the free will to starve to death?
Just like the free will of natural disasters?

Your idea of free will is extremely flawed. People don't suffer on free will. Your god cares more about the free will of murderers and rapists than the free will of victims to life. God created humans perfectly knowing that they would rape and murder, if a dog kills another dog or cat then the owner is responsible.

Then again a god who floods, slaughters and tortures people isn't exactly a good rolemodel.

Free will gives people the ability to do a lot of wrong things, you can rape, murder, lie, cheat, etc. That means you can also have the will to protect, comfort, help, and support.
It does suck that the world we live in is so messed up but we are the ones shaping it.
People are starving when we produce enough food to support everyone in the world and then some. People get mugged and robbed because we force the robbers into desperation and then turn a blind eye to those being robbed.
The way ive always seen it is as a sort of child like aspect. Making your kid do something good is one thing, but having them do good on their own because they listened to you and learned from you is a really rewarding feeling.

God could help us against the abuse of free will. Suffering is not based on free will because a baby cannot drown himself on free will or get raped by free will.

Just imagine if human society acted like that, should we have no more prisons because prisons are against free will? No we still lock them up.

Your view of Free will is flawed, God gave us the capacity to murder but also the capacity to love it is us who chooses what we will do with the gift he has given us.
Free will only gives us the capacity to do things we gave ourselves the desire to do evil.

You cannot get hit by a comet on free will can you?
You cannot get raped by free will do you?

Also a lot of murderers don't even murder on free will. A lot of them have no choice because they are mentally sick. Why would god create a mental ilness based around insanity to kill someone? How is that free will?

And we have the free will to get those murderers help or do better research on the cosmos and have gotten those people evacuated, we make the world what it is,
You state random events as if someone let them happen when no one did because God does not interfere in the world of man.

God created EVERYTHING.

Therefor he creates natural disasters, mental ilnesses, disabilities and delusions. Things that human beings do not want on free will.

Having the free will to help these murderers won't unmurder. The fact remains that these murders murdered because of their mental ilness god created, or are you seriously going to say mental ilnesses are a choice too?

Look you don't seem to be understanding what I'm saying to you and I am probably not fully getting what you're saying, so let's stop here both of us with our opposing ideological views. But keep in mind God makes the world but we put it together, you don't blame the Lego company for what a kid makes with their Legos.

Actually if a kid chokes on lego because the lego pieces are to small and there was no warning then the lego company is responsible because they made the lego.

If you bought a dog perfectly knowing the dog is extremely agressive and he bites of the head of a cat the owner of the dog is responsible.

You're saying that god made the world and us humans shaped it by our free will but we didn't make natural disasters or mental ilnesses (atleast not most) Therefor god must've.

What about the part where if you don't get spashed or dipped in water, you burn for an eternity?

Baptism isn't required to go to heaven. It's just a sign to the church body and to the community that you have submitted yourself to following the teachings of Jesus.

Imagine if a government made rape legal because, HEY! "Freewill", amirite?

Yeah, it'd be fucking stupid.

You seem to be assuming there's no punishment for doing wrong. The government isn't going to stop somebody from murdering you, because they aren't there to control everyone, that's not their duty. God will punish the wrongdoers, but will not stop them because everyone has free will.

At least, that's my (and other Christians') beliefs.

So if a policeman comes across a person being murdered, he doesn't have to stop it, he just has to make sure the murderer is arrested afterwards?

For starters, you said the government and legality.

Secondly, I believe that God does save some people some of the time in exceptional situations. However, a policeman isn't always on the spot, and he can't always act.

We'll find out one day.

(Before you say, "well then God favors people hurr durr." Some people are more innocent than others, some people just truly deserve to be protected, despite free will)

And some little girls deserve to be raped, of course.

I guess you wouldn't understand where I'm coming from if you come from a different side than me. Some people believe God doesn't interfere at all, I believe he does little this's and that's.

Of course.

When you find $20 on the floor, "It's a miracle!"

When millions are starving in Africa, "God works in mysterious ways".

I think believers will always find a way to defend their religion because it's so vague to begin with. They twist it and pick and choose and rationalize until it works with their argument. I really don't care if they do believe or not, but what I hate is when they give this sense that they think they're better than you. Same goes to atheists that think that way, even though I completely agree with them.

Oh my, this isn't your average everyday athiest.

This is, an internet athiest.

I don't praise God when I find $20 mate, and I don't call it God's work that children starve in Africa. Quit being a stereotypical dicksqueeze.

I'm glad you acknowledge that most of my fellow atheists are not like me, I wouldn't want them to get blamed for my jimmyrustlin'.

But seriously, you have no argument. An omnipotent deity could help everyone that needed help, and don't say that he only helps those that "deserve it" because that's blatant bullshit.

We can keep arguing in circles and you can keep making fallacies, but at the end of the day we're both wasting our time. Good day sir.

Whatever floats your boat.

Like the belief that your beliefs are better than someone elses?

i concur.

Some beliefs are worse than others, for instance idiot parents letting their kids die because medicine goes against their religion.

Or radical muslims killing rape victims.

But no, we shouldn't say their beliefs are idiotic, it might offend them...

You mean people are crazy and take good things too far?

When has that ever happened?

the radical elements of any belief system are not good representatives of the belief system as a whole

Deism in a nutshell

OP was trolling right?

also im borrowing that gif... thanks

You should not have done that my friend.

Oh alrighty then, i can forgive you this one time. [One

implying the majority of people who thumb this kind of shit should be referred to as people :P

I am probably the last person who should comment this.

But fucking hell, if those fuckers believed in god and didnt take a childs tv show too far when they're fucking at least teenaged guys then this world may not be headed down the shithole of "the religious guy must be wrong" and "lets give every fucking thing rights" The day I go into mcdonalds and they have an only vegetarian menu because cows and chickens got equal rights is the day a massacre begins its planning.

But thats not what is happening at all.

Atheism usually correlates with liberal believes which are open to humor like your picture there.

I have more respect for Christians than people like you, as a non-religious person.

Everyone should watch that episode of Futurama were Bender becomes God, it explains your point really well.

my love for futurama knows no bounds

The problem being that a FUCKTON of religious cunts actually believe that God listens to their prayers and helps them. "Oh, my whole family prayed and my aunt was cured of her cancer because of our faith!"

YOU FUCKING CUNT I WILL UNSCREW YOUR HEAD AND SHIT DOWN YOUR NECK FOR THAT ARROGANCE.

I don't give a FUCK about people's religion, believe what you want, but you ARE NOT SPECIAL.

i kind of agree


i mean i go to church and stuff, but i'm never a dick about it

maybe theres a god, maybe there isn't i like to believe there is because fuck it we're all going to die anyway

he's supposed to be all-powerful.

So yah... he's like 20 billion spidermen.

doesn't mean he's your personal spiderman
eternal salvation doesn't imply that god is going to just stop all the bad shit from happening.

simply because he has the power to prevent stuff from happening does not mean it is his fault that bad things happen

that's just an excuse to justify it

It isn't his fault, but he has the power to easily do it (supposedly)

>implying god exists (because we really just dont know one way or the other)
>implying you've met god so you know why he does shit
>the entire concept of free will

its not logical to blame god because kids get raped. kids get raped because pedophiles rape them, not because god is a lazy douche. it's not like got can just pick him up and drag him somewhere else like the sims,

god is only "omnipotent" to an extent. there are things even god can't do.
everheard of the paradox where god cooks a burrito so hot even HE can't eat it?
its the same kind of thing, true omnipotence is a paradox and therefor impossible. when an unbreakable standard is set by an omnipotent being, that same omnipotent being can break said unbreakable standard (unstoppable force meets immovable object)

therefor true omnipotence is impossible, let it be known that if there is a divine spirit of any kind (which is possible, even likely, just not in the way the bible describes it) said divine spirit cannot counteract itself, and is therefor not truly omnipotent, but rather more powerful than any other force in the universe.


god set a boundary for himself by giving free will to humans. with that, he cannot directly prevent atrocities because that would involve free will.


this is all assuming god exists, which is a stretch in itself, however if we are to assume god's existence, we must be certain about what God means and what he can and cannot do.

I said supposedly, and don't start an argument you can't win
and omnipotent has no extent, otherwise its not omnipotent, it goes against the definition
so no, god isn't a lazy douche, he either doesn't exist, or he doesn't give a flying fuck about you and your made up religion
and as for free will, the bible teaches that god took it away from man as punishment for eve eating the forbidden fruit

you're getting a little douchey bro

your comments illustrate that you clearly didn't understand what i was trying to say

i clearly defined the difference between the "omnipotence" that you would see in a divine spirit and the true omnipotence that results in a paradox. like i seriously just said that, and now you're just saying "no you're wrong because you're wrong. i don;t have a logical standpoint from which to debate you so you're wrong because i can say it louder"

you seriously didn't provide any significant feedback for or against my argument. you just babbled that i'm wrong about things i didn't even say.


don't start an argument you cant win? i'll have you know I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces.

and fuck the bible, i clearly stated that the bible is wrong about god in the first place. you know the bible isnt the first book to talk about god, right? that's not where the concept of a god came from.

I understood what you said.
It was just stupid. There is a difference.
You aren't wrong for no reason, you just don't understand why.
And yes, there was feedback, but again, you didn't understand.

you aren't providing anything with which to argue, you're just telling me i'm wrong

over and over again

go back and read it.....like I just told you
I clearly explained how you misdefined omnipotence and then declared on that notion that omnipotence is impossible, and rebutted all your points in post number 666.

Lets go through your comment 671
1. "you and your made up religion"
i said quite clearly that god may or may not exist and the bible got it wrong. therefor do not connect me with the made up religion
2. god isn't a lazy douche
yeah i know, that's what i fucking said
3. he either doesn't exist or he doesn't give a fuck
im sorry, i forgot you've weighed every single option when it comes to divine power and narrowed it down from the infinite possibilities that exist in an ever-expanding universe to two possibilities that don't stand up to much if you keep an open mind
4. as for free will, the bible teaches-
gonna stop you right there. i said quite clearly that the bible got it wrong. the concept of a God has been around since long before the bible was written. there are multiple ideas of god that exist, and the way i am describing him is much more of a bare, theoretical idea, NOT TO ATTEMPT TO PROVE THAT HE EXISTS, but rather to point out why it is stupid to blame god for stupid shit people do.

5. omnipotent has no extent

let's put this into theory and apply it:
lets just say you're omnipotent, now microwave a burrito and make it so hot even YOU can't eat it
seriously make it so hot, you can't eat it.
now EAT THAT SHIT,
option 1:
WHAT?! YOU CAN'T?! YOU'RE NOT OMNIPOTENT!!
option 2:
YOU ATE IT?!! but it was supposed to be so hot even YOU couldn't eat it!!
impossible right? so omnipotence is paradoxical. I am not saying god is omnipotent, but rather that (IF HE EXISTS) he would theoretically be the most powerful being in the unvierse. you can be the best, most powerful without being omnipotent.
think about michael jordan for example. he is the best basketball player ever, but he isn't omnipotent when it comes to basketball. he's the best, but not flawless.

and did you just seriously compare Michael Jordan to a god?
that just means it even clearer than you're misnterpreting omnipotent out the ass

you are obviously not understanding the PARALLEL i was making

I understood it. It just was god-awful. No pun intended.

1-It wasn't a literal "you", obviously.
As for number 2, you forgot the BUT, that was the entire point.
this is what I'm talking about, you don't listen
3- If you're going to say I don't know enough to say what the possiblities are, then neither do you with your "oh boo hoo, god wants to help but he can't" argument
4- that was just an example, I don't believe in the bible
5- That's just a chicken or the egg kind of statement, the answer is unknown, but that doesn't mean your head blows up from the seeming paradox, or that neither one came first. clearly one of them did
6- You're the one that needs to be eating the shit, not me

1. then what was it figurative? i'm not talking about the bible in this particular situation, taht's all i'm saying
2. "but god isn't a lazy douche"

that's still what i was saying, the but doesnt change much considering that my original statemen was that god is not a lazy douche,

in fact i rechecked your comment a couple times,


you never said "but god isn't a lazy douche"

you said "so no, god isn't a lazy douche, he either doesn't exist, or he doesn't give a flying fuck about you and your made up religion"

no buts to be found actually, but i understand what you are saying. my original statement was simply that people shouldn't think that god doesn't give a fuck, we as people have a tendency to think that god is omnipotent, when in fact he is simply much more powerful than people.

3. i'm applying a likely possibility and saying why it could be true, i'm not cancelling out anything, so other possibilities may exist. your statement cancelled out all other possibilities, which is a null statement.

4. you were referencing the bible, we arent talking about the bible, we must disregard the bible in this particular situation

5. chicken or egg statement is a lot different in that we are certain one came before the other, that's not a paradox, that's just something you sit on your porch and wonder about when you're bored, but altogether you know it is not impossible that they could have existed at the same time. a paradox is where one event causes another event to be impossible, yet both events supposedly occur, for example God tries to microwave a burrito so hot even he can't eat it.

6 you need to reread 6 becuase i wasn't telling you to eat shit, i was saying "eat that shit", which is just my ebonic way of saying "attempt to perform an action that is rendered impossible under the terms of the paradoxical situation"

but seriously this whole thing is simply a development of a contradiction towards reasoning that a divine being is to blame for the folly of men

Ok, most of what you said here is pretty much nonsense.

As for the chicken and the egg, its the epitome of paradoxes. Where did the first chicken come from? an egg? But then where did that egg come from? a chicken? but then where did that chicken come from?
Paradox

can you at least prove that it's nonsense? I'm having a hard time basing logic upon the whim of an adjective. i'm pretty sure most of it made sense, and you're not helping your case by just saying that everything I say is nonsense. It's easy to say, but can you back it up with any kind of logical statement?

chicken v egg isn't entirelu a paradox because it is quite possible that either outcome may occur. in reality however, it was neither, the single celled ancestor came first. chicken v egg implies creationism, which is proven to be false.

Also it can't be be neither.

One of them had to come first, although yes, it probably evolved from something else.

Also it's one of the best examples of paradoxes out there and you don't think it is one. That's pretty funny.

Prove it?

Here, read this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

can you explain how my argument falls into a false dichotomy? I really don't understand how this relates.

I mean it's an informative article and it's full of information, but could you maybe at least outline how my argument denies a null hypothesis or fails to reject a null hypothesis based on evidence or lack thereof?

This doesn't really prove anything, that's like being in a courtroom trying to convict a rapist, so you show the judge a wikipedia article for rape. he knows what rape is, but he still is not shown how the definition of rape connects with the defendant.

in fact that post is an illogical conclusion in itself because you didn't show me how my argument was an appeal to ignorance, all you did was define the false dichotomy scenario through the wonderful interwebs.

I think you misunderstand, I'm not saying it's true, i'm saying it's possible

My argument is not so much as an appeal to the concept of lack of evidence towards the contrary as it is an evasion of pragmatic development under the condition that we allow a specific condition to exist, in this case that specific condition is the existence of a god. I then elaborate that the concept of omnipotence cannot be attributed to a God due to the impossible paradox (attempting to apply the unstoppable to the unchangable) that is brought about through supposed omnipotence. Then we continued by saying that a supposed God would not be al pwerful in a way that one may attribute to an omnipotent being, but rather that God is simply somewhat more powerful than people.

this is completely conditional, and it only serves to prove the futility of blaming a God for the flaws of humans

then you took all that and said "yeah well it sounds like chicken v egg so it's wrong"

that's an illogical comparison that evades the subject matter entirely

"one of them had to come first, although yes, it probably evolved from something else"

if it evolved from something else, it came from that, and thusly whatever species that reproduced through eggs was more biologically succesful for their species, so they gradually developed into existence at the same time, one of them could not have come first with definite specificity, it was more of a gradual assimilation through the nature of the evolutionary process.


And I find no humor in not thinking that an illogical question (that we just proved could not have happened in a scenario where one comes first with definite specificity, due to the nature of evolution) is a paradox. Louis CK is funny, a development of mental thought through a debate that continues to spiral into the purest forms of mental philosophy is more interesting than funny.

HFW

MFW

(First .gif was fucked up.)

HFW