tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post1861317238654711348..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: 4 Modern Views about God and the UniverseMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-86600990267105187622012-08-16T12:56:54.275-07:002012-08-16T12:56:54.275-07:00M. Tully:
Brilliantly stated =]M. Tully:<br />Brilliantly stated =]derek.facehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13121564711335024474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-84321292322912017252009-07-19T04:24:51.107-07:002009-07-19T04:24:51.107-07:00最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセ...最近TVや雑誌で紹介されている家出掲示板では、全国各地のネットカフェ等を泊り歩いている家出娘のメッセージが多数書き込みされています。彼女たちはお金がないので掲示板で知り合った男性の家にでもすぐに泊まりに行くようです。あなたも書き込みに返事を返してみませんか家出http://ruby.iwatukisan.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-57252031588442552782009-07-17T08:01:41.986-07:002009-07-17T08:01:41.986-07:00最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.07...最近仕事ばかりで毎日退屈してます。そろそろ恋人欲しいです☆もう夏だし海とか行きたいな♪ k.c.0720@docomo.ne.jp 連絡待ってるよ☆メル友募集noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21442139653775349202009-07-06T06:49:50.016-07:002009-07-06T06:49:50.016-07:00みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあ...みんなの精神年齢を測定できる、メンタル年齢チェッカーで秘められた年齢がズバリわかっちゃう!かわいいあの子も実は精神年齢オバサンということも…合コンや話のネタに一度チャレンジしてみよう精神年齢http://new.haaaasagasou.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56560313637439658052009-07-04T05:37:59.752-07:002009-07-04T05:37:59.752-07:00さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆...さあ、今夏も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか?当サイトは円助交際の逆、つまり女性が男性を円助する『逆円助交際』を提供します。逆円交際を未経験の方でも気軽に遊べる大人のマッチングシステムです。年齢上限・容姿・経験一切問いません。男性の方は無料で登録して頂けます。貴方も新たな出会いを経験してみませんか逆円助http://new.googlejuku-navi.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-56507919863653702832009-03-27T05:16:00.000-07:002009-03-27T05:16:00.000-07:00Tully,There is no contradiction between X and Y. H...Tully,<BR/><BR/>There is no contradiction between X and Y. How simple is that?<BR/><BR/>X: God = True<BR/><BR/>Y: Zeus = False<BR/><BR/>Z: Tully = ?<BR/><BR/>Even if we assign Y as True there still is no contradiction. Zeus was not an omni being and could have been mistaken by greeks with one of the angels. we can do this with all other sets of magical beings.<BR/><BR/>Remember, a contradiction is between P & ~PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-54029196350046640952009-03-25T20:57:00.000-07:002009-03-25T20:57:00.000-07:00Oh Anon,"Um tully there is nothing inconsistent in...Oh Anon,<BR/><BR/>"Um tully there is nothing inconsistent in believing in God but not Zues. Do you know what a contradiction is?" <BR/><BR/>Yes I do.<BR/><BR/>How about you? What in your epistemology allows you to categorically believe one but deny the other?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-57002243700915483482009-03-25T18:14:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:14:00.000-07:00Um tully there is nothing inconsistent in believin...Um tully there is nothing inconsistent in believing in God but not Zues. Do you know what a contradiction is? P&~P? i bleive in god x but not god y,z,x,c....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-45759777954727130712009-03-23T21:11:00.000-07:002009-03-23T21:11:00.000-07:00"If I believe in single unprovable being does that..."If I believe in single unprovable being does that mean I also believe in all others?"<BR/><BR/>No, it just means your either logically inconsistent or intellectually dishonest.<BR/><BR/>Keep going.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22359822250589751092009-03-22T23:20:00.000-07:002009-03-22T23:20:00.000-07:00Tully,"Yet you felt the need to respond? Interesti...Tully,<BR/><BR/>"Yet you felt the need to respond? Interesting"<BR/><BR/>I said I did not want to respond to the rest of that post. How could you equate that with anything else you said?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"My rebuttal was exactly about the limitations of proof."<BR/><BR/>If that was the case then why didnt you address the use of nonproofs in a belief? Rather you carried on a red herring about how believers must accept other non provable beings, which is faulty reasoning. If I believe in single unprovable being does that mean I also believe in all others? Of course not!<BR/><BR/>I have no idea why you think I am making tricks (fallacies) with my post. If that was the case then I am sure the phil folks would be calling me on them. Rather they are just telling me that they think i am wrong.<BR/><BR/>So we should let the evidence speak for itself? Really? If it was that easy then there wouldnt be much disagreement. Have you ever sat in class and critqued a recent study? Cofounders, weak analogies etc. The fact is evidence needs to be interpretated and such interpretation always comes along with assumptions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25162982012690224292009-03-22T21:12:00.000-07:002009-03-22T21:12:00.000-07:00Anon,After reading your arguments, I must ask are ...Anon,<BR/><BR/>After reading your arguments, I must ask are you a Poe?<BR/><BR/>Because if you are I have to tell you, I don't think intellectual dishonesty is ever warranted in the free exchange of ideas. Let the evidence speak for itself. It doesn't need tricks and in fact I believe that cheap tricks should be condemned.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand Anon, if you're a committed theist writing your own honest opinions, keep right on commenting.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-4717958879507695852009-03-22T21:05:00.000-07:002009-03-22T21:05:00.000-07:00"However, you're rebuttal was weak because it did ..."However, you're rebuttal was weak because it did not address the limitations of proof"<BR/><BR/>My rebuttal was exactly about the limitations of proof.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-282900066910291362009-03-22T20:59:00.000-07:002009-03-22T20:59:00.000-07:00"No, I do not wish to address anything else you sa..."No, I do not wish to address anything else you said. I do not find it interesting at all."<BR/><BR/>Yet you felt the need to respond? Interesting.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-65352749096802448122009-03-19T00:48:00.000-07:002009-03-19T00:48:00.000-07:00"No, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it..."No, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it does explain your comments."<BR/><BR/>So are my commments wrong? What do you have against fourth graders?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-64028320370809140812009-03-19T00:45:00.000-07:002009-03-19T00:45:00.000-07:00Tully..."There are proofs within mathematics, whic...Tully...<BR/><BR/>"There are proofs within mathematics, which is what my comment refers to."<BR/><BR/>Yes, but you responded to the poster with an attempt to rebuttal. However, you're rebuttal was weak because it did not address the limitations of proof, which is what the poster was getting at, which appears to be a red herring...<BR/><BR/>"Now, would you like to attempt to refute the argument I made or would you rather just play at semantics?"<BR/><BR/>You mean like fireproofing or fool proof as opposed to mathematical proof? Was that the semantic confusion?<BR/><BR/>No, I do not wish to address anything else you said. I do not find it interesting at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-81548950582709922212009-03-15T20:36:00.000-07:002009-03-15T20:36:00.000-07:00"im in the fourth grade does that make me wrong?"N..."im in the fourth grade does that make me wrong?"<BR/><BR/>No, it doesn't necessarily make you wrong, but it does explain your comments.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-21235961389928102792009-03-15T19:24:00.000-07:002009-03-15T19:24:00.000-07:00"Correct but there isnt proof of mathmatics either..."Correct but there isnt proof of mathmatics either"<BR/><BR/>There are proofs within mathematics, which is what my comment refers to.<BR/><BR/>Now, would you like to attempt to refute the argument I made or would you rather just play at semantics?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-63238094191420073572009-03-15T11:19:00.000-07:002009-03-15T11:19:00.000-07:00"Take out a science book and a book of medicine fr..."Take out a science book and a book of medicine from a hundred years ago."<BR/><BR/>And yet, if tomorrow you woke up and started puking blood all over your bathroom floor, you would run straight to the hospital and unhesitantly put your life into the hands of medicine.<BR/><BR/>And this, in spite of your belief in prayer and in God's omniscience, omnipotency, infallibility and benevolence.<BR/><BR/>Gee, I wonder why?<BR/><BR/>Robert MoraneRobert Moranehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00706576618914923528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-52959458761462376962009-03-14T00:13:00.000-07:002009-03-14T00:13:00.000-07:00"Proof" only truly exists in mathematics and alcoh..."Proof" only truly exists in mathematics and alcohol content.<BR/><BR/>Correct but there isnt proof of mathmatics either - there is no proof of an axiom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-28353488374776530072009-03-13T21:02:00.000-07:002009-03-13T21:02:00.000-07:00"The first position makes the least amount of assu..."The first position makes the least amount of assumptions and at the same time is consistent with scientific and empirical evidence, therefore it is a much stronger argument."<BR/><BR/>I think you misunderstood Mr Martin. There is no least or more assumptions but only one that either side makes when considering the initial premise of the creation of the universe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-87875027951278148282009-03-13T20:58:00.000-07:002009-03-13T20:58:00.000-07:00""Says you." !???! Seriously? That's your reply to...""Says you." !???! Seriously? That's your reply to a valid, reasoned argument? What are you, in the fourth grade? Is you mommy or a grown up home? Maybe we can talk to them. This is depressing."<BR/><BR/>im in the fourth grade does that make me wrong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71399821212674004972009-03-11T21:03:00.000-07:002009-03-11T21:03:00.000-07:00Despite my loathing of creationists, I must say, t...Despite my loathing of creationists, I must say, the non-religious who hold utterly absurd beliefs about human development are even worse.<BR/><BR/>For example: I know someone who believes that humans didn't evolve naturally, but that aliens visited Earth and altered/created humans. He also quoted Answersingenesis as his source of evidence for evolution not happening. Infuriating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-55795048424155723372009-03-04T18:57:00.000-08:002009-03-04T18:57:00.000-08:00Tully, your "evidence and faith" explanation was n...Tully, your "evidence and faith" explanation was nice and clear. Thanks for the laugh too, you did it with the just about least amount of ad-hominem possible. Just enough for good humor.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877962468047811190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-76687800596692732842009-03-04T09:48:00.000-08:002009-03-04T09:48:00.000-08:00"Thanks. You probably would have done it more eloq..."Thanks. You probably would have done it more eloquently,"<BR/><BR/>Not likely I don't suffer fools very well. Something I've been working on most of my life to little effect. ;)Scarecrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15324151298399098144noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-66784581589484887022009-03-03T17:48:00.000-08:002009-03-03T17:48:00.000-08:00Carbon Based,Thanks. You probably would have done...Carbon Based,<BR/><BR/>Thanks. You probably would have done it more eloquently, but hey the point made it across, however blunt my style might be.<BR/><BR/>As for Steve, I say he goes with "Head in the Sand." He seems to be a bright individual who will surrender his intellect to protect an indefensible premise.M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.com