Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

There's some problems with any argument you could make and I'll give you some of the cliff's notes, but it's really not worth getting into, because not even the world's best minds will be sorting it out before the sun poofs.

One of the properties of energy is that it cannot be destroyed or created, except that flies in the face of the ontological ex-nihilo argument which has not been countered.

Another issue is that if it's true that energy cannot be created or destroyed and that it naturally seeks it's lowest common form, then given that time is infinite, the universe we live in should be an evenly distributed 2 dimesional plane of energy. That is answered with the untestable theory that energy comes into and out of our universe from and to other universes (multiverse, string theory, etc)

The religious answer is a diety, and regardless of your religious flavor, none of which can be known or in most cases contradicted (lucky for them...).

It all boils down to nobody knows the origin so you should choose whatever answer causes you to least act like a d-bag.

QotD

IF YOU WORSHIP JEHOVA YOU WILL BE CAST OUT OF MIDGARD! DELCIOUS FOOD FOR THE JØRMUNDGAR

When Ambrose Bierce had his faith obliterated by what he saw in the American Civil War, he pretty much railed at a God whose existence he denied for the rest of his life. In any case, I think many of you will appreciate this definition of his from The Devil's Dictionary:


pray, v. To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

Boredalt - 80 Dwarf Priest - Dissension

Meek.

If it's impossible to prove one way or the other, how can anyone honestly pick a side?

There was a time when we (humans) had no understanding of anything at the atomic level since we couldn't see it. Then, people theorized the concept of atoms but nothing was capable of being proven since the technology didn't exist - that doesn't mean atoms didn't exist. It just means we couldn't see them.

People also theorized that there was such a thing as cold fusion and that it would be possible but at the time no one could prove it. That eventually turned out to be not possible and the one account of it's truth was proven to be bad science. Just because something can't be proven yet, doesn't mean it exists as a counter point to your argument.

You make a good point in the fact that we cannot honestly prove either way if a god exists or not. However, I don't care if he exists or not. The christian god is not worthy of worship, neither are any of the other gods or goddess' in human's history. Religion was originally created as a way to explain how the world worked. Gods and goddess' were given "domains" in which they controlled things and most of the time the realm of the dead was nothing like the hell that the christian mythos accepts.

to achieve cold fusion, you merely need good vibrations.

I actually crave cookies made with toffee, and I'm sure there are more than three threads where I admit that I'm wrong, or at the very least misinformed, about something. Not that I should have to defend that sort of accusation when it's coming from one of the people here who, when they are wrong, feign disinterest and stop posting in a thread rather than admit their own error...or even better do their juvenile "well everybody knows that's wrong" bit.

If you think I just "tried" to debate our esteemed friend and colleague, because your bias and asinine smug adolescent superiority complex won't allow you to concede any ground to points you disagree with regardless of merit, you can look forward to a future of disappoint when your oral/written arguments are subjected to review somewhere outside the realm where you've deemed yourself arbiter.

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

that's some nice wisdom there.

Ever since that thread I lost some respect points for Laelia, mainly because he got a PhD in a joke of a field. I mean, he's supposed to be a DOCTOR (trained by the liberal propaganda thinktank of "higher education", BIG SURPRISE) but some dude who drives a forklift knows more about biology than he does.

How embarassing!

RETIRED.
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Mayonaise[/armory]
[armory loc="US,Bleeding Hollow"]Jerkonaise[/armory]

Maybe it's because he's self-certified?

In fairness to Laelia, I can't concede points that aren't made, and they couldn't be made because our friend couldn't reference the relevant material here...other than to say, "it's here, but you have to believe me." That's not how debate works, though. You have to present your proof. Most of the time that descends into an argument about the proof, usually with the argument that the source is biased, but that's a legitimate argument, and one we can't have when the material can't be presented.

The same thing goes here. I'd welcome anyone to offer proof that either a) there is a god or b) that there isn't (and the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, tyvm). No one can do either. In the absence of proof, the choice to believe (or not) is completely subjective, and it's absolutely uncivil of either side to point fingers at the other and state/imply "LoL yer dum cuz you didn't pick my side."

Your Pal,
Jubber

AKA "The Gun"
AKA "ROFeraL"

World Renowned Mexican Forklift Artiste

What field?

PS: people who drive forklifts are stupid?

Thermodynamics has no bearing on theology and the "dbag" answer is probably that which is most pretentious.

You can go read Livy or Homer or the Bible itself or any number of other works in which references to God are just a cynical way of keeping people in line. Again, nihilism is a copout.

Aestu of Bleeding Hollow...

Nihilism is a copout.