Dear Atheist,

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Ok. I really do need to go now. Got to study for my retard classes...lol. Hopefully I can figure how to open my book.

[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.

[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.

[DrKvothe]

Boggwin, your chosen profession is an admirable one, but I agree with those flaming you that your education doesn't qualify you to make broad scientific statements. To be fair, an MD wouldn't qualify you either. These are not degrees that vigorously enforce the scientific method, nor do they require in depth investigation through the published peer-reviewed research literature.

Medical doctors who want to conduct research typically need a phd as well as their MD. They also typically conduct supervised postdoctoral research before they're deemed qualified to lead their own research program.

The physical evidence does not support the conclusion that all species initially coexisted. The fossil record is quite convincing that more primitive species once existed but have gone extinct and that many modern species appear to have arisen fairly recently. Evolution has proven to be a powerful optimization algorithm within observable timeframes. Consider the Lenski experiment, or even the results of intentional breeding which gave rise to all modern domesticated species.

Creationism's strongest argument is that no other theory is possible. The scientific community does not agree with this assertion. At the molecular level, life is messy and filled with artifacts that suggest nonrational development. The elegance you suggest demands a creator is entirely inelegant from a molecular biology view.

[r00t]

And God would definitely be omniscient over anything in our understanding after designing every aspect of our systems. It's like if you asked Linus Torvalds about Git

[kylok]

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

Boggwin, your chosen profession is an admirable one, but I agree with those flaming you that your education doesn't qualify you to make broad scientific statements. To be fair, an MD wouldn't qualify you either. These are not degrees that vigorously enforce the scientific method, nor do they require in depth investigation through the published peer-reviewed research literature.

Medical doctors who want to conduct research typically need a phd as well as their MD. They also typically conduct supervised postdoctoral research before they're deemed qualified to lead their own research program.

The physical evidence does not support the conclusion that all species initially coexisted. The fossil record is quite convincing that more primitive species once existed but have gone extinct and that many modern species appear to have arisen fairly recently. Evolution has proven to be a powerful optimization algorithm within observable timeframes. Consider the Lenski experiment, or even the results of intentional breeding which gave rise to all modern domesticated species.

Creationism's strongest argument is that no other theory is possible. The scientific community does not agree with this assertion. At the molecular level, life is messy and filled with artifacts that suggest nonrational development. The elegance you suggest demands a creator is entirely inelegant from a molecular biology view.

OMG this thank you thank you thank you for taking the time to write that out coherently.

[kylok]

R00t who the fuck are you to make assumptions about a hypothetical omniscient being? Please find me some evidence of "God" that isn't man made or random correlation.

[Orruar]

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

And God would definitely be omniscient over anything in our understanding after designing every aspect of our systems. It's like if you asked Linus Torvalds about Git

Computer science researchers run programs all the time where they are pretty ignorant as to the details of what is going on inside. This is not because they are stupid, but because the complexity they create is beyond their ability to digest it easily. Nor would it be worthwhile to bother understanding every minor detail. How do you know we aren't just a program being run by some grad student who doesn't really know much beyond the large scale structure of the universe? Maybe the only visualization they see is the spiderweb of galaxy clusters and filaments.

[kylok]

And for further clarification I consider myself an agnostic, can't prove or disprove the existence of deities. I base all of my decisions and thinking on the empirical modified by a few key assumptions such as base 10 arithmetic.