a different world without a deity

[robertb]

God because God does not need anything else. Is there something you still can't understand?

So God is synonomous with nowhere?

Ok.

[robertb]

Wrong again child because God consist of everything he needs, including a place.

Like a turtle, I suppose.

He was, which was himself. Are you understand this yet? God does not need anything and where God was at, is part of himself too. Simply put, God exist reguardless of the state of everything else.

He does not need to creat himself dear. Is this too hard for your tiny mind to understand? God does not need to creat himself nor a place for himself because these are all part of him because God does not need anything. Understanding this yet?

So God is nothingness?

OK.

[Griggsy]

No,lilpixie., you are the one with the burden for evidence. Nature surrounds us, but God could only be inside Existence, and to argue from logical possibility vaunts the argument from ignorance as Plantinga does.
Existence, the Metaverse, as we are getting to know it as illuminated in New Scientist on-line encompasses all , so that theists must argue from it and the presumption of naturalism to God.
Oolon, yes, indeed.
T'is not that science is all, but one has to evidence matters if one makes a claim that does not fit into our conservation - background -of knowledge.
We don't need Him to make sense of objective reality, to assuage us , to ensure morality and other matters. The ignostic-Ockham shows either that as having no referents and having contradictory, incoherent properties, He is that square circle or married bachelor as my signature notes or He is a useless redundancy, Alister 'Shallow' McGrath notwithstanding.
The atelic or teleonomic argument notes that science finds no intent behind natural causes- telonomy, so that to postulate Him contradicts the laws off Nature. Not only does this argument apply to all teleological ones, but to any that use intent: so there can therefore be no First Cause as that cause would have intent nor any miracle mongering God or one who acts in history.
As people see Yeshua in a tortilla- no there there- so people see intent and design when there is only teleonomy and patterns.
As the signature also notes:Logic is the bane of theists. They special plead and beg questions and make other logical fallacies in their determination to uphold the universal neurosis.
No, I argue thus in no circles. William Sahakian would argue that we use the fallacy of multiple questions- circular reasoning, begging the question- when we ask what made or designed Him when theists are the ones begging the question and special pleading for His being different. And special creationists falsely argue that we evolutionists beg the question in correlating strata, fossils and dates and that we use the tautology with differential reproduction.
Theists ever fail logic and falsely accuse us of that!

[lilpixieofterror]

So God is synonomous with nowhere?

Ok.

:strawman:

You just love to create these strawmen arguments, don't you? No where did I or anybody say that, try this reading thing please, thanks!

[robertb]

:strawman:

You just love to create these strawmen arguments, don't you? No where did I or anybody say that, try this reading thing please, thanks!

I did read and like others who have taken the liberty to do so, I inferred.

You got a problem with that?

[lilpixieofterror]

No,lilpixie., you are the one with the burden for evidence. Nature surrounds us, but God could only be inside Existence, and to argue from logical possibility vaunts the argument from ignorance as Plantinga does.

Sorry Griggsy, that isn't how the game works and only an idiot would try to play it that way. Having a disbelief does not make anyone magically above having to produce evidence for their disbelief or belief. This is the fundy atheist way of not having to present any possible arguments. The realtiy is that the belief that nature is the only thing that exist is a positive bleief, right? So following your logic, shouldn't you have to produce evidence for it, so where is your evidence? BTW I really do doubt you understand Plantigna, since you can't even understand that both parties must give evidence and I have. In the form of witnesses, historical documents, and philosopical arguments. It is now your burden to show how this evidence is bad or how it is wrong. Got a reason yet or is all you can produce is burden shifting without meeting any of your own?

Existence, the Metaverse, as we are getting to know it as illuminated in New Scientist on-line encompasses all , so that theists must argue from it and the presumption of naturalism to God. Oolon, yes, indeed.

And again, I've already refuted this and the best it seems you can do is simply say it isn't true and call it good. This is again being lazy and trying to turn science into what it isn't. Science can not study what it can't experiment with over and over again. When will you fundy atheist learn this? Sorry, I do not have to argue with the presumption of the philosophy of naturalism, you must produce evidence that it is true. Can you produce evidence that nature is all that exist or do you believe that on blind faith?

T'is not that science is all, but one has to evidence matters if one makes a claim that does not fit into our conservation - background -of knowledge.

Science is only one form of knowledge dear and only a fool would try to turn it into what it isn't. I have produce evidence you have thus far ignored so it appears that the only one here that has blind faith is yourself. Now where is your evidence that nature is all that exist or is that a claim based on blind faith and nothing else?

We don't need Him to make sense of objective reality, to assuage us , to ensure morality and other matters.

:strawman:

Never said we do, but I have produced evidence for my burden and all you can do is try tochange the topic to something else because you can't answer it. Isn't that right? Sorry dear, but the belief that nature is the only thing that exist is a positive belief and following the rules of evidence that fundy atheist like yourself have created, it must be supported due to it being a positive belief. Do you have any evidence or is this simply a belief you have that is based on the very same blind faith that you accuse Christians of having?

The ignostic-Ockham shows either that as having no referents and having contradictory, incoherent properties, He is that square circle or married bachelor as my signature notes or He is a useless redundancy, Alister 'Shallow' McGrath notwithstanding.

:strawman:

More of the fundy atheist stupidity we see. Sorry child, but this poor argument has already been answered by Christians for years. Square circles are a logical contradiction and God does not create logical contradictions. Of course, Nick can answer this more in detal, but I doubt you'll be able to answer him because you're simply a fundy atheist that hasn't actually bothered to study Christian beliefs and it seems all you can do is repeat the same worn out arguments because you don't have any new ones.

The atelic or teleonomic argument notes that science finds no intent behind natural causes- telonomy, so that to postulate Him contradicts the laws off Nature. Not only does this argument apply to all teleological ones, but to any that use intent: so there can therefore be no First Cause as that cause would have intent nor any miracle mongering God or one who acts in history.
As people see Yeshua in a tortilla- no there there- so people see intent and design when there is only teleonomy and patterns.

AKA the univere just poped into existance because it gives me reasons to doubt. Do you have evidence for this belief or is it based upon blind faith?

As the signature also notes:Logic is the bane of theists.

Logic is the creation of theist and many philosophers thoughout history have been theist. Only a complete and total idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about would make such a claim. Of course, you are a fundy, so it doesn't suprise me at all that you don't know. BTW you better drop Occam's razor because it's creator (William Ockham) was an an English Franciscan friar. Got to love it when fundy atheist shoot themselves in the foot.

They special plead and beg questions and make other logical fallacies in their determination to uphold the universal neurosis.

Much like your arguments are, just a bunch of ad hominems, double standards, and burning straw. No answers to a word I said, no evidence for your own positive beliefs, nothing but assertions. So when will you produce evidence for your belief that nature is the only thing that exist?

No, I argue thus in no circles. William Sahakian would argue that we use the fallacy of multiple questions- circular reasoning, begging the question- when we ask what made or designed Him when theists are the ones begging the question and special pleading for His being different. And special creationists falsely argue that we evolutionists beg the question in correlating strata, fossils and dates and that we use the tautology with differential reproduction.
Theists ever fail logic and falsely accuse us of that!

Ironic since that is pretty much what we see here with your poor arguments and self contradictions. For example, if logic is the bane of theist, why are you using an argument that was developed by a theist? In your next rant, please renounce Occam's razor as illogical because you claimed logic is the bane of theist or will you simply ignore this because you just made a fool of yourself? I bet it will be the latter of the two. Enjoy your self contradictions!

BTW I'm also a theistic evolutionist, so there goes another one of your arguments down the tubes! Gosh, it must suck that you can't get anything right, eh?

[lilpixieofterror]

I did read and like others who have taken the liberty to do so, I inferred.

You got a problem with that?

Translation: "Oh crap, I've been proved wrong again, so let me quickly come up with something even stupider because I can't admit I made an error."

Sorry child, but no where did anything I say infer anything. Gosh, you must digging the bottom of the barrel now, but we both know you'll never say you're wrong about anything. It's too bad for your that the Bible does infer that God does exist outside of nature and it seems rather than simply admit you were wrong, now you're just screaming, "WAAA!!! God must exist nowhere!" because you can't admit to an error, no matter what. Isn't that right? Now please show that anything we said would infer that God exist nowhere or is the reality that you can't and know it? I await your evidence, thanks!

[robertb]

Translation: "Oh crap, I've been proved wrong again, so let me quickly come up with something even stupider because I can't admit I made an error."

Sorry child, but no where did anything I say infer anything. Gosh, you must digging the bottom of the barrel now, but we both know you'll never say you're wrong about anything. It's too bad for your that the Bible does infer that God does exist outside of nature and it seems rather than simply admit you were wrong, now you're just screaming, "WAAA!!! God must exist nowhere!" because you can't admit to an error, no matter what. Isn't that right? Now please show that anything we said would infer that God exist nowhere or is the reality that you can't and know it? I await your evidence, thanks!

Glinda, Glinda,Glinda,

Did I ever actually disagree with you that you view God as outside of nature? No.

I simply asked you to specify where, exactly, that was?

[Mountain Man]

Did I ever actually disagree with you that you view God as outside of nature?

However, you did smugly assert that such a belief could not be supported with scripture. Of course you were immediately proven wrong, not that you've had the good grace to concede it.

[robertb]

However, you did smugly assert that such a belief could not be supported with scripture. Of course you were immediately proven wrong, not that you've had the good grace to concede it.

Actually, I asked you if it was specifically scriptural or was it inferred.

You can go back and look at my post...

[Mountain Man]

Actually, I asked you if it was specifically scriptural or was it inferred.

No you didn't, you smugly implied that the Bible didn't support the notion that God existed apart from his creation:

Lil' Pixie, where in the bible does it specifically say that God exists outside of nature?

I am not aware of such a passage.

It's pretty clear from your tone that the last sentence could be read as, "I am not aware of such a passage, because it doesn't exist." Then when shown that you were wrong you whined that it was inference and then went off on your stupid little "Then that means God is nowhere" tangent. Rather than man up and admit you were wrong you tried to muddy the waters, but this is par for the course for you so I shouldn't be surprised.

[lilpixieofterror]

Glinda, Glinda,Glinda,

Did I ever actually disagree with you that you view God as outside of nature? No.

I simply asked you to specify where, exactly, that was?

Child, evidence was provided and you ignored it. Just as MM said though, it is your usual so I shouldn't be suprised that you're going off on every tangent rather than simply admit you're wrong.

[Stax]

Actually, I asked you if it was specifically scriptural or was it inferred.

You can go back and look at my post...

A question which I answered and you ignored...

[Griggsy]

Lil pixieoferror, no the one who makes the claim has the burden. So don't play that game. Anyway, You are a sophist,sir. I no more have to substantiate that than I've to establish other minds or external reality. And don't play Plantinga's begged question of basic belief.
No, again, theists must evidence any supernatural rather than beg the question thereof. God is no more basic than ESP!
The Metaverse is forever as science is ever confirming it as noted @ on-line New Scientist. The quantum fluctuations, in accordance with the conservation of matter-energy, are eternal. Quantum tunneling appears to be now the way of the transformations of Existence.
Ah, your problem,sir, is science. It reveals no intent. Thus no First Cause, Grand Designer, miracle monger or actor n history to save Jewry finds itself!
You are using the genetic fallacy. It is an ignoratio elench fallacy-- irrelevant- from whom I get matters! So Ockham the logician demolishes Ockham the Franciscan!.
[COLOR="darkolivegreen"
You just don't fathom those logical terms To call me a fundamentalist atheist is so puerile and jejune. I ask for evidence that complements our conservation of knowledge rather than arguing against evidence. You're parroting the advance theologians and others that rather than engage in argumentation prefer to bleat farragoes of nonsense!
Carneades, the first ignostic, demolished theism eons ago: we are a mere footnote!]
I know my advanced theologians,answering their silly arguments.
They ever have that bane as you sure do!
What other farragoes of nonsense will come from you or some other theist here? Some use argumentation.
To infer intent when only teleonomy works betrays logic , showing cognitive dissonance. Again no intent means no divine intent can be possible period!
To argue otherwise one uses the argument from pareidolia that theists see intent and design as people see the man in the moon- no there there -rather than teleonomy- no planned outcomes. Study my friend Jerry Coyne's " Seeing and Believing" @ Talk Reason and also there Amiel Rossow's essay on your fellow creation evolutionist Kenneth Miller.

[lilpixieofterror]

Lil pixieoferror, no the one who makes the claim has the burden. So don't play that game. Anyway, You are a sophist,sir. I no more have to substantiate that than I've to establish other minds or external reality. And don't play Plantinga's begged question of basic belief.

Wow, looks like the little child is unable to answer a word I said, so he hopes repeating himself over and over will make him sound smart. I don't play that game dear so what evidence do you have that nature is the only thing that exist. Remember... it's a positive belief that must be supported by the rules atheist lay forth. Where is your evidence? Got any yet or let me guess... you don't like it when the Christian puts you on the spot.

BTW I'm a girl and not a boy dear; can you read?

No, again, theists must evidence any supernatural rather than beg the question thereof. God is no more basic than ESP!

Burning that straw I see. Who said a word about ESP? It seems you like to believe that Christians are stupid to reinforce your supeority complex. Got that low of a self esteem?

The Metaverse is forever as science is ever confirming it as noted @ on-line New Scientist. The quantum fluctuations, in accordance with the conservation of matter-energy, are eternal. Quantum tunneling appears to be now the way of the transformations of Existence.
Ah, your problem,sir, is science. It reveals no intent. Thus no First Cause, Grand Designer, miracle monger or actor n history to save Jewry finds itself!

Sorry, but anybody that knows a thing about quantum fluctations would know that no respected scientist would say it proves God can't exist. Only fundy atheist make such claims because they are ignorant of science because the good scientist knows that particles are all around us and pentrate everything. Meaning that we don't know the exact causes of these fluctuations... so sorry; this doesn't prove what you think it does. What else do you have to enforce your blind faith?

You are using the genetic fallacy. It is an ignoratio elench fallacy-- irrelevant- from whom I get matters! So Ockham the logician demolishes Ockham the Franciscan!

Wrong again child because you claimed that logic is the bane of theist and yet you use logic theist have developed to make your arguments! AKA you didn't think before you made these arguments and got caught with your pants down and now you your trying to dig your way out... poor fundy atheist... so frustrated and unable to dig your way out. Have fun trying salvage your credability now.

You just don't fathom those logical terms To call me a fundamentalist atheist is so puerile and jejune. I ask for evidence that complements our conservation of knowledge rather than arguing against evidence. You're parroting the advance theologians and others that rather than engage in argumentation prefer to bleat farragoes of nonsense!

Aka your out of arguments and unable to say your wrong. Sorry child, but I came up with this by myself and I'm not parroting anybody. You just don't like being bested so your lashing out. Must suck for to be resorting to ad homiemns and well poisioning, eh?

Carneades, the first ignostic, demolished theism eons ago: we are a mere footnote!

And yet you have been unabe to give anything that I and other theist haven't been able to refute. How is that bloated ego of yours working or do you like being bested by a theist that is half your age?

I know my advanced theologians,answering their silly arguments.
They ever have that bane as you sure do!

Are you done ranting yet or will you actually produce an arguement someday? Sorry dear, but it seems that logic is your bane and not mine.

What other farragoes of nonsense will come from you or some other theist here? Some use argumentation.
To infer intent when only teleonomy works betrays logic , showing cognitive dissonance. Again no intent means no divine intent can be possible period!

What in the world this is about, I have no idea... but it looks like you can't answer and now resorting to name calling. Do you have an argument yet or are you just ranting?

To argue otherwise one uses the argument from pareidolia that theists see intent and design as people see the man in the moon- no there there -rather than teleonomy- no planned outcomes. Study my friend Jerry Coyne's " Seeing and Believing" @ Talk Reason and also there Amiel Rossow's essay on your fellow creation evolutionist Kenneth Miller.

Do you have anything that isn't a rant that actually provides arguments? Looks like all you can do is throw out insults without answering arguments?