Please present a compelling explanation why naturalism is true

[stevebrooks]

Originally Posted by Praxis

Nice try Soupy, but jireh has already informed us that he doesn't read the links provided to him, yet may here have done him the courtesy of reading his.

The cognitive dissonance is extraordinarily strong in this one.

I did find it very interesting when he claimed that only he was the one to decide whether anyone was worthy to teach him, can't be bothered trawling the entire thread to find that particular gem, but of course it does bring to mind the fact that anything his selected teacher could teach him he must already know, since he was the one to decide if there was anything the teacher could teach him.

That particuler gem tells us everything, in his opinion he already knows everything he needs to know.

[hackenslash]

Originally Posted by stevebrooks

I did find it very interesting when he claimed that only he was the one to decide whether anyone was worthy to teach him, can't be bothered trawling the entire thread to find that particular gem, but of course it does bring to mind the fact that anything his selected teacher could teach him he must already know, since he was the one to decide if there was anything the teacher could teach him.

That particuler gem tells us everything, in his opinion he already knows everything he needs to know.

Theism in a nutshell. And they call us arrogant!

[THWOTH]

But you can't say that is objectively true, it's just your opinion.

[wearestardust]

Indeed it is an objective truth that you're wrong.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by THWOTH

That has already been shown to you and yet you do not reference it or take account of it, take issue with it, refute or negate it in any way. Simply repeating yourself does not strengthen your argument (such that it is).

Hás it Been shows? Where?

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

You don't get it do you jireh?

It is YOU that is saying that nature CANNOT produce a code. It is YOU that needs to demonstrate that it is impossible - low probability means nothing.

Use your numbers and show everybody here that the probability cannot be 1.

If you can't provide that proof - then demonstrate your intellectual honesty and retract your challenge at #255.

It hás Been demonstrated already.

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by jireh

It hás Been demonstrated already.

What has been demonstrated? Your intellectual honesty, while we still await your straight answers to this and these?

[THWOTH]

Originally Posted by jireh

Hás it Been shows? Where?

Did you not read hackenslash's comments citing extinctions as an example of macroevolution? Use the search function if you missed it.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Xeno

What has been demonstrated? Your intellectual honesty, while we still await your straight answers to this and these?

Does your god control his own nature?

I don't understand your question. Please be more clear.

[jireh]

Originally Posted by Atrax Robustus

You don't get it do you jireh?

It is YOU that is saying that nature CANNOT produce a code. It is YOU that needs to demonstrate that it is impossible - low probability means nothing.
.

If low probability does not mean nothing to you, means that, you would bet us$ 1000,00 on a probability of one to 10^50 ??