RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility", in which assumptions are facts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Occam's Toothbrush

Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,15:01   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,12:07)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 09 2009,02:36)
I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously

If your creator god had "infinite intelligence" as you put it, then how can the creation of the universe have been so damn strenuous for her?  Why would an infinitely powerful and eternal being be so deeply invested in one part of her creation, one which is such an infinitesimally small fraction of her overall work?  If a being has an infinite quantity of something (in this case intelligence), how can there be a "relative" aspect to how much of that something the being invests in any given project?  If I have infinite X, and I expend a trillion units of X doing a task, I still have infinite X.  What's "relatively" large about that trillion-unit project, when I can still do an infinite number of additional projects if I want?  Even if you think you know we're the only life in the universe, what evidence do you have that making us is one of the harder things she ever did?  

It's fascinating how you godbots always want to tell us how unknowable the mind of god is at one moment of convenience, then the next thing we know you're telling us all kinds of things you do know about her.  You tell us you're not here to make a scientific argument, but all you do is make sciencey arguments to scientists about science, telling them their science is wrong because of what you "know" about your unknowable god.  

You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions.

So why engage me then?

Because your snappy rhetorical retorts are so devastating.

"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  1103 replies since Jan. 26 2009,15:45 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]