Satan is having an easy time of it!

[Shaker]

It's easy, albeit time-consuming (it's a lot of writing ...) to demonstrate why the fine-tuning argument is a large pile of unwashed underwear, Alan, but the recent and rapid proliferation of rather sullen-teenagerish "In your opinion" and "So what?" doesn't fill me with confidence that you're actually interested in having it explained to you why something that you believe is nonsense. Or, if you prefer, not based on sound reasoning.

I don't blame you - I fully understand; not many people positively enjoy having it pointed out to them that something they take to be true is wibble.

[Alien]

It's easy, albeit time-consuming (it's a lot of writing ...) to demonstrate why the fine-tuning argument is a large pile of unwashed underwear, Alan, but the recent and rapid proliferation of rather sullen-teenagerish "In your opinion" and "So what?" doesn't fill me with confidence that you're actually interested in having it explained to you why something that you believe is nonsense. Or, if you prefer, not based on sound reasoning.

I don't blame you - I fully understand; not many people positively enjoy having it pointed out to them that something they take to be true is wibble.

That sounds very much like a cop out to me.

[Shaker]

That sounds very much like a cop out to me.

It may sound that way, I fully agree, although it isn't. I'm making the point that "So what?" and "In your opinion" (a statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one - when debating or discussing a particular issue with someone else, whose opinion are you seeking?) are discussion-terminating statements which, as I say, don't engender a great deal of confidence that you're amenable to patient explanation.

[Alien]

That sounds very much like a cop out to me.

It may sound that way, I fully agree, although it isn't. I'm making the point that "So what?" and "In your opinion" (a statement of the bleeding obvious if ever there was one - when debating or discussing a particular issue with someone else, whose opinion are you seeking?) are discussion-terminating statements which, as I say, don't engender a great deal of confidence that you're amenable to patient explanation.

If you claim something the onus is on you to back it up. If you see that as "discussion-terminating", so be it.

[Shaker]

Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.

[Alien]

Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.

Good man. Would it be best on a new thread? We seem to have moved a long way from the actual subject of this thread.

[Shaker]

I don't mind starting or your starting a new thread ("Why fine-tuning isn't a good argument" or some such) as long as it's a placeholder for when I can get around to giving it my all.

[Andy]

It's easy to do away with the fine-tuned argument so that intelligent life can exist. Just reference your contrasting belief that intelligent life exists outside the fine-tuned universe in that realm you call heaven.

[BashfulAnthony]

Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.

Are you finally being neutered?   

[Shaker]

Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.

Are you finally being neutered?   

And cut out a larger part of the joys of existence? Have you run mad, man? Goodness, me, no, not this chap. However, the cat may have worms, hence the brief and for once (mirabile dictu) not particularly expensive trip to the vet.

[Shaker]

No, the cat's already neutered years ago; it may be that he has w ... oh, never mind 

[Shaker]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2013/07/homer-simpson-doh-400x288.jpg

 

[BashfulAnthony]

Very well, I shall get to work (as soon as I'm back from the vet) and marshal my arguments.

Are you finally being neutered?   

And cut out a larger part of the joys of existence? Have you run mad, man? Goodness, me, no, not this chap. However, the cat may have worms, hence the brief and for once (mirabile dictu) not particularly expensive trip to the vet.

Seriously, hope the fella is okay.        (For the cat!!)

[Sassy]

Is this post about Satan or you lot?
Maybe THAT'S the point. Seems some here have justified the title of this post !!!

As a heathen who is supposed to wind up in hell, I guess I should be very jealous. Two of the 'Christian' posters on this thread are likely to be sitting at dear old Satan's right hand having done such a great job for him down here. The non believers on this forum will be nonentities and won't get a look in!

There's no such thing as Satan:  grow up!  You are merely using the concept to throw brick-bats at people.  So, again, grow up!

You see you Christians are so confusing - not to mention inconsistent.

This is a brief extract I just found:

If you disbelieve that Satan exists or that he is a mere myth, then you are saying that God has lied to us and placed myths and fables in the Bible. Just because Satan has been portrayed in inaccurate ways down through history or through Hollywood movies, does not negate the truth that Satan exists as we have seen in the verses we looked at up to this point. When we begin to arrogate to ourselves a mindset of I know more than God, which is exactly what people do who deny any cardinal doctrine of Scripture, you can be sure that person is unsaved. If a person calls themselves a Christian and then goes and attacks God’s word, they are no better than the cults who do it which means they are on the same ground as they are, unsaved. Let us proceed to the second part of this study which contain verses with euphemisms for Satan which name his attributes or character. You will notice that I did not hit every verse with the name Satan or will I hit every verse in part 2. This is simply for brevity sake but nothing is stopping you from studying those other verses since you now have a good foundation laid for you.

From here: http://www.scionofzion.com/satanexist.htm

Now this is just from a quick gogglle because I haven't much time - and I have no idea who this person is or indeed what his website is trying to achieve - I merely post it as proof that some Christians do believe in Satan.

I am sure if you looked around some more, or even talked to some of the posters on here they would also affirm their belief in Satan.

I'm glad you recognise it for the rubbish it clearly is - but you can't really have a go at Floo when clearly many Christians do believe.

God isn't a liar...

Job 1.
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.


Satan is the enemy of man who denies the truth about God.
Satan knows he cannot defeat God.. How does he know? Because God has told him and yet he persists in trying to destroy Gods creation by making them like himself.

Satan is the epitome of everything EVIL and against God.
Like Man in the face of truth they both choose to ignore the truth about God and make God out to be something evil breeding mistrust.

Epitome of disbelief and epitome of not caring how much suffering he causes to man. He is going to hell and the lake of fire and those like him are following... because like man he sees things only his/their own way...

King James Bible
Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

With God, it is about TRUTH and always has been about TRUTH.
He keeps his words he is not a liar...

[floo]

'God isn't a liar'

Another daft assumption made by Sass. You have no idea if exists let alone whether the deity is truthful or not!

[Alien]

I don't mind starting or your starting a new thread ("Why fine-tuning isn't a good argument" or some such) as long as it's a placeholder for when I can get around to giving it my all.

That's fine. Perhaps it would be best for you to start the thread when you are ready. That would be good for me too as I am well behind in responses on other threads at present.

[wigginhall]

I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism.   Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation.  It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot.   Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.   

I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'.  Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe.  I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.

[BashfulAnthony]

I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism.   Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation.  It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot.   Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.   

I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'.  Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe.  I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.

A pure assumption, and not verifiable.

[Shaker]

The same as theism.

[BashfulAnthony]

The same as theism.

There are at least arguments for it.  Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.

[trippymonkey]

It's all always seemed to me to be some kind of strange testing ground with experimental stuff going on all the time.

I can iimagine God almost like some kind of professor, mad??, or doctor etc watching things 'unfolding' all the time.?!!?!?

[floo]

I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism.   Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation.  It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot.   Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.   

I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'.  Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe.  I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.

An interesting thought.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism.   Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation.  It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot.   Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.   

I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'.  Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe.  I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.

An interesting thought.

Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.

Usually at this point I apologise for ''pissing on one's bonfire'' but since it's Wigginhall, I won't be.

[Shaker]

Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.

It doesn't "suffer" and there's nothing "fatal" or "anthropocentric" about it. Living things are built out of chemical elements, most of which (i.e. everything past hydrogen) have to be created in the deaths of large numbers of stars; therefore the universe has to be old enough and large enough to have been through the process of stellar evolution.

This in and of itself says nothing about theism or atheism, but it does explain the presence of living things at all.

Whether you regard human beings as made of stardust (Carl Sagan) or spent nuclear waste (John Gribbin) is a matter of personal preference, but it all amounts to the same in the end.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.

It doesn't "suffer" and there's nothing "fatal" or "anthropocentric" about it. Living things are built out of chemical elements, most of which (i.e. everything past hydrogen) have to be created in the deaths of large numbers of stars; therefore the universe has to be old enough and large enough to have been through the process of stellar evolution.

This in and of itself says nothing about theism or atheism, but it does explain the presence of living things at all.

Whether you regard human beings as made of stardust (Carl Sagan) or spent nuclear waste (John Gribbin) is a matter of personal preference, but it all amounts to the same in the end.

And what if it all happened in a much longer time in part of the multiverse and indeed in the blink of an eye in another?

Your statement is at least ''Carbocentric''.

Sorry to Piss on your Bonfire.