Really Sciency

Visit my other blog 'Really Sciency' looking at Climate Science and its portrayal, misrepresentation and denial in the media.

Sunday 20 February 2011

Isn't this a vaild observation?

18 comments:

  1. It's a joke.

    One that depends on the presumption that God is subject to the passage of time in the same way that elements of the universe are.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So he didn't wait 14 billion years - he just sort of fast forwarded for some undefined reason?

    ReplyDelete
  3. "So he didn't wait 14 billion years"

    Nope.


    "he just sort of fast forwarded for some undefined reason"

    Nope.



    "depends on the presumption that God is subject to the passage of time in the same way that elements of the universe are"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Indeed it depends on how much nonsense you want to presume about something that can't be proven.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But the question was whether this is a valid observation or not. If you think that God is "nonsense" then it can't be a valid observation because your presumption is that God does not exist in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So if god does not exist - is it a valid observation?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "So if god does not exist - is it a valid observation?"

    If God does not exist how can it be a valid observation when the joke depends on God existing and being the creator of the universe?

    ReplyDelete
  8. a) It's a joke.
    b) It would still be a valid observation for anyone to ask of those who do believe gods exist.

    I doubt anyone asking would be impressed with the 'My god isn't on GMT' argument - I'm certainly not.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "a) It's a joke."
    Yes. I have already pointed that out.

    "b) It would still be a valid observation for anyone to ask of those who do believe gods exist."
    You have. It isn't (for the reason given previously), i.e. it "depends on the presumption that God is subject to the passage of time in the same way that elements of the universe are".

    "I doubt anyone asking would be impressed with the 'My god isn't on GMT' argument - I'm certainly not."
    If you're going to ask theists why this isn't a valid observation then you should at least have the courtesy to listening to the established theological arguments that have been developed within their respective traditions why it not valid.
    You're attitude appears to be "I think that this is valid and I don't care what you believe God to be and why you think that this is invalid".
    In which case there is no point in you asking the question since you are already dogmatically committed to a particular answer and aren't prepared to listen to any others.


    Which isn't really unusual for you, c.f. http://lazarus-on.blogspot.com/2010/12/disfigured-are-barred-from-gods.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It isn't (for the reason given previously)"

    But I reject you reason entirely. There is no evidence that anything isn't subject to the passage of time.

    "You're attitude appears to be "I think that this is valid and I don't care what you believe God to be and why you think that this is invalid"."

    Nail - head. I don't care when things are claimed without being supported by credible evidence. There is noting dogmatic about it because I am open to reviewing any evidence on any subject and applying reason to determine what is most likely the truth.

    Things not being subject to time is clearly a fudge to overcome the illogical nature of a creature twiddling it thumbs for billions of years before deciding to spend a few thousand years actually carrying out the purpose of creation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "There is no evidence that anything isn't subject to the passage of time."

    But you would contend that there is no evidence for God either so for you the point is moot.


    "Nail - head"

    So dogmatic, ignorant and not really interested in discussion at all.


    "Things not being subject to time is clearly a fudge to overcome the illogical nature of a creature twiddling it thumbs for billions of years before deciding to spend a few thousand years actually carrying out the purpose of creation."

    No it isn't. It is a Christian theological argument that dates back at least to St Augustine of Hippo (long before the true age of the universe was known).

    The logic is very simple: If God is the creator of the universe and if time is a property of that universe then God must exist independantly of time since (like space) He is it's creator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Not dogmatic nor ignorant as I am open to any new evidence for a god and his published time table that anyone submits and I am aware of some Christians view on the matter - I simply don't accept it as credible to believe.

    "The logic is very simple: If God is the creator of the universe and if time is a property of that universe then God must exist independantly of time since (like space) He is it's creator."

    But it isn't logic is it? How can logic exist without any connection to credible, discernable and logical facts?

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I simply don't accept it as credible to believe."

    But you expect others to accept A JOKE as "a valid observation".



    "How can logic exist without any connection to credible, discernable and logical facts? "

    You simply don't understand what you are talking about.

    The logical statement given relies on certain presumptions, hence the inclusion of qualifiers such as "IF" and "THEN".

    It is still a logical statement in the same way that "If X is greater than Y and if Y is greater than Z then X is greater than Z".

    ReplyDelete
  14. "But you expect others to accept A JOKE as "a valid observation""

    Many a true word said in jest.

    As for the rest I admit I simply don't understand what you are talking about.

    How can logic exist without any connection to credible, discernable and logical facts? In plain, how can you know anything about an alleged deity's time keeping without any credible evidence said deity even exists?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Many a true word said in jest."

    But not in this case because, as I have already pointed out the "God" in this joke is a over-simplified misrepresentation of the Christian God.

    It is, in essence, a strawman.




    "As for the rest I admit I simply don't understand what you are talking about."

    That much is obvious.

    You should try to refrain from pontificating about subjects that are clearly beyond your grasp (such as logic).

    ReplyDelete
  16. ""God" in this joke is a over-simplified misrepresentation of the Christian God."

    Really? A straw man for something that cannot be shown to exist - that is a new one on me. Can you give a less simplified representation of your god? Don't tell me - he cannot be understood by mere mortals or other such tripe.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Even if you only consider God to be a concept or human idea rather than an actual being this joke still relies on an over-simplifed misrepresentation of that idea of God.

    It is still a strawman.

    It is still not "a valid observation".

    ReplyDelete
  18. "this joke still relies on an over-simplifed misrepresentation of that idea of God."

    You cant rationally say this because you cannot provide ant support for how simple or complicated any god is.

    ReplyDelete