Dear Atheist,

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

... Some of science's greatest minds believed they knew it all too. The earth was flat. Our solar system revolved around the Earth. Spontaneous generation. Blank slate theory. Cold fusion. Static Universe. The list is goes on and on. ...

More to add to the list:
Zeus
Thor
Jehovah

[kylok]

Originally Posted by Boggwin Bramblefoot [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'll skip all of the assumptions you wrote about me, (Assumptions, wow, how scientific is that? Is that the scientific method you were lecturing me about?) and go straight to your problem. You, like so many arrogant college science students before you, think you have everything figured out, and that is laughable. Some of science's greatest minds believed they knew it all too. The earth was flat. Our solar system revolved around the Earth. Spontaneous generation. Blank slate theory. Cold fusion. Static Universe. The list is goes on and on. The things you think are proven fact now, will be as laughable as many we now look back on. Go on parroting the drivel you hear in school and wake up. You look childish. (kind of like that guy in the bar in Good Will Hunting)

I responded to your posted based on its content. Re-read this damn thread where I explained the difference between mixing entropy (intensive) and the new entropy (he's calling it nodal and differential entropy) which is extensive. You are assuming that this is a hypothesis, it is not. It has been proven mathematically and is a perfect model. I do not use the word perfect lightly. And if I'm the guy in the bar in Good Will Hunting you're Ben Aflec. If anyone is taking what they've been spoon fed at face value it's you. If I appear childish it's cause... I'm 24, I know huge surprise right? You're in RnF don't get too butthurt man.

[kylok]

And I'm being made physically sick by the rampant misuse of the word theory

A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

[r00t]

Who is misusing the word theory and causing the confusion, besides evolutionists

[r00t]

bacteria turning into more bacteria is proof that god doesnt exist

[r00t]

you say tomato I say tomato

[r00t]

If you accepted that we are living in a computer simulated reality, you would have to concede the creator is our GOD

But, you believe that everything is too complex to be a computer simulation, thus there is no God

Do you see the fallacy

[kylok]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you accepted that we are living in a computer simulated reality, you would have to concede the creator is our GOD

But, you believe that everything is too complex to be a computer simulation, thus there is no God

Do you see the fallacy

The fallacy is that you assume what I believe. I don't believe in a single goddamn thing, I personally hate that word and avoid it at all costs. That one word and the idea behind it has been the greatest plague of humanity, far worse than anything else I can think of.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you accepted that we are living in a computer simulated reality, you would have to concede the creator is our GOD

But, you believe that everything is too complex to be a computer simulation, thus there is no God

Do you see the fallacy

I see the fallacy. You introduced a pretty obvious strawman in the second sentence. Who said things are too complex to be a computer simulation? Further, who said that this then implied there is no god?

Question: Assuming there is a god(s), is/are they omniscient?

[r00t]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I see the fallacy. You introduced a pretty obvious strawman in the second sentence. Who said things are too complex to be a computer simulation? Further, who said that this then implied there is no god?

Question: Assuming there is a god(s), is/are they omniscient?

No strawman. He stated it was too complex by trying to explain it away with the speed of photons and shit. He has implied there is no god in virtually every post.