Arrogant Schmuck: Therefore, having god as the neccesary creator of the universe (on the grounds of the complexity of the universe) is completely invalid.
Alaric:It seems to me that you first need to set out what this argument is intended to do. It seems to me, from the formulation and the various possible conclusions (given the conditional), that one of the follwoing may be the target of your argument:
1)the existence of God
2)the existence of God as traditionally defined by theism
3)the design argument, specifically that from fine-tuning
4)the ontological argument
Servo: Duh... Let me think about it.
Mike: The point of my argument is that oral sex is fun.
Crow (mimicing Alaric): Duh, is this about underwear, beer, or picking my nose?
Alaric: Your response in fact begs the question; and it constitutes a category error. The argument from design rests, among other things, on the very physical laws that you subscribe to. You would have to throw THEM out in order to validate your response.
Mike: Notice how he didn't say exactly which part was wrong or which physical laws were in question?
Servo (mimicing Alaric): Hey, at one time, you hurt someone, stole something, and fled to somewhere for so long.
Crow: How the hell did you find out about that?
datathief: Please define "God"...
Alaric:I don't see that you are unfamiliar with the usual working definition of God: a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and benevolent personal being.
Crow: God knows everything and can do anything and is so benevolent that he leaves us here, forced to watch this stupid crap.
Mike: Doesn't being omnipotent and omnipresent make one transcendent?
Ju2000: Can you justify the "benevolent" part of that? Any evidence? I see only outrageous cruelty.
Alaric: Are you blind? Or is it that you are prone to the outrageous use of hyperbole?
Mike: Crow, can you justify your story about being the one who slashed everybodys' tires, syphoned their gas, and robbed all six banks?
Crow: Are you blind? Or is it that you are prone to the outrageous use of hyper-hooker?
Alaric: If it were the case that God requires explanation. then the theist would simply be begging the question.
RayGreaves: Why wouldn't it require an explanation? What question would the Theist be begging if it does?
Alaric: My apologies - that was vague and/or ambiguous, which is not good. I did not mean that God did not need a reason for existing; I meant that there was no causal explanation for His existence either necessary or given.
Servo (mimicing Alaric): Duh, I'm not saying it doesn't need an explination, I'm just saying that no explination is either necessary or given.
Alaric: The theist is trying to break the infinite regression of causes. To posit a further effect is not to break the regression; thus it begs the question.
Mike: I get it. Infinite regression is a problem, so let's just say it ain't so.
Alaric: Do not equate every Christian with theists.
Crow: So, christians are atheists?
Alaric: Non-physical means non-physical, non-existant means non-existant.
Crow: Dilweed means dilweed.
Mike: Gooblyboodlydox means gooblyboodlydox.
Servo: Bojdnah means bojdnah.
datathief: ...please define "non-physical"...
Alaric: "Non-physical" can mean different things. You may consider the following as options:
1)not physical
2)not material
3)spiritual
4)metaphysical
Mike: I didn't know opening a thesaurus was the same as defining something.
Alaric: 5)not governed by the laws of nature
Servo: Really? If god's so omnipotent, then wouldn't it be less confusing for him to just repeal the laws of nature in the first place?
Mike: I could've sworn "the laws of nature" is just a name given to things observed that are consistant...
Alaric:6)not directly observable by physical means 7)not directly testable through empirical means
Crow (mimicing Alaric): I'm dumb enough to say the same thing twice. I'm too stupid not to repeat myself.
Mike: Hey! One second, you said god's actions could contradict everything we know of physics, and now you say it can't be observed?
Alaric: You say that the non-physical cannot affect the physical BY DEFINITION, basically. That is just an assertion.
Mike: There's no such things as invisible, pink unicorns in another dimension that steal your car keys using undetectable magic.
Servo: You're only asserting they don't exist.
Crow: But they do exist. I tried gluing my keys to some porno, but that didn't stop them.