>i would like one link from you that proves that we were created by god. i want full proof, not just circular logic. i want evidence that not only turns the theory of evolution on it's head, but also does a better job of explaining the data and answering where we come from, how we evolved, and what we can expect to find in the future. i await your evidence for creation.
TS
Let me answer for Elderwho: READ GENESIS
1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
2. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it.
3. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
Go ahead, Bright Boy: logically explain the existence of the universe. Opinions and guesses don't count.
Science is NOT in agreement on Origins
1. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore,it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
4. YOUR Science obviously clashes with the very observable order (first cause, irreducable complexity) and magnificence in the universe, as per my paste of numerous articles that are much more reasonable.
5. You can't answer the God question, nor the Origins question. You've no business putting the burden of proof on anyone else.
Rex
Tetly Plants Feet Firmly in Mouth
by Shining One 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
Shining One
-
Odrade
"It is so, because I believe it is so." Rex, by your logic: my belief in the Loch Ness Monster is proof of her existence. Because if she weren't real, I wouldn't believe in her.
-
-
tdogg
lets count the fallcies....
1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
#1. False Dilemma
3. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
#2. Bifurcation
1. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
Such as? And what evidence? #3: Anecdotal evidence
2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
What evidence, ie proof? #4 Burden of proof
3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore,it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
Exactly! But we only have 5 known receptors with which to gather data, and they all rely on physical detection. Gonna have to give you a fallacy for the whole "God, by definition" part though #5 Argumentum ad ignorantium
5. You can't answer the God question, nor the Origins question. You've no business putting the burden of proof on anyone else.
Sigh. This one is easy #6 Burden of proof.
Please, for the love of God, so to speak, study up on logic and logical fallacies before you try any more "reasoning".
-
Shining One
From StupDogg
lets count the fallcies....
1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
#1. False Dilemma
(((((NO delemma, a fact)))))))
3. The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
#2. Bifurcation
((((obvious fact: I observe the universe, physicists have taken MEASUREMENTS that point toward a first cause. I can call 'First Cause' God, this is essentially deism.
1. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
Such as? And what evidence? #3: Anecdotal evidence
(((((I have posted links of some from some of them, go look.))))))
2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
What evidence, ie proof? #4 Burden of proof
(((((({proof is provided above))))))))
3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore,it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
Exactly! But we only have 5 known receptors with which to gather data, and they all rely on physical detection. Gonna have to give you a fallacy for the whole "God, by definition" part though #5 Argumentum ad ignorantium
((((((Quit trying to sound like a 'scholar', you are not fooling anyone)))))))
5. You can't answer the God question, nor the Origins question. You've no business putting the burden of proof on anyone else.
Sigh. This one is easy #6 Burden of proof.
Please, for the love of God, so to speak, study up on logic and logical fallacies before you try any more "reasoning".
((((((ditto, where does 'logic' itself come from, Great Brain #2?)))))))
Rex -
Pistoff
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. Therefore, it had a beginning. The universe did not bring itself into existence. Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
Wow. Brilliant; insightful. Why didn't I think of that???
You are wasting your time here; you should really call CNN and tell them of this astonishing line of reasoning you have come upon.
P
-
tetrapod.sapien
wow. how come no one told me that i had my own thread. i had to wait until i needed my daily dose of rex entertainment, and go looking through his god aweful topic history that he likes to call "threads".1. I can no more prove to you that God is real than I can prove to you that I love my family. If you are convinced I don't love my family, no matter what I say or do will be dismissed by you as invalid. It is your presuppositions that are the problem, not whether or not God exists.
i doubt you love your family. how could you? you're a xian fundy still. same as witnoids. your love is conditional. you learned this from your god. it's only partly your fault. example: if your son was a homo, something tells me you wouldn't love him very much. plus, how can you love someone when:
- your god hates him?
- you think he'll be burning in hell?
- you think you're special messenger with a special message from a special god?
at any rate, there are many familys that have some love in them. this is a regular observed fact in this world. now we just have to observe a god and presto, we can have a conversation! of course, on another level, i am a god, and i see him in the mirror every morning, vestigial evolutionary features and all.
2. I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence...because your presuppositions don't allow it.
he he. except that we can see a universe, but have yet to see a god. i know, it's a bit hard for you to grasp, and i don't expect much at all. but then again my fingers needed the exercise.
3. The universe exists. **** It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago. **** Therefore, it had a beginning. **** The universe did not bring itself into existence. **** Since it was brought into existence by something else, I assert that God is the one who created the universe.
the red asterisks above show where your line of argument went from a regular paragraph to a series of non sequitur statements. please repair implicit assumptions first, and return.
Go ahead, Bright Boy: logically explain the existence of the universe. Opinions and guesses don't count.
please do not embarrass yourself. ooops, too late.
i assume that because science does not have all the answers, freely admits it does not have all the answers and never will have all the answers, that the genesis account is the logical alternative to the question!!??
yep, i know. i used to be a jehovah's witness too rex.
Science is NOT in agreement on Origins
it's also not in agreement on many things. it's what makes science a better way at arriving at reality than religion ever did. thanks for stating the obvious though. my turn:
you have no clue what in the hell you're talking about.
1. There are many scientists who affirm evidence for God's existence through science.
ya, it's called "magical thinking".
so, is this like a daily affirmation? "dear jesus, i affirm that even though i fly in the face of my peer scientists by lying for you about this here fossil, i will never stop loving you. (smooch, affirm, smooch, affirm).and hey? i freely admit that i look down on scientists who are able to shut their brains off at the end of each day and go home to pray before they eat to some incarnation of a dung beetle god currently known as jesus.
or did you mean peer reviewed science? well, at that point you are obliged to stop lying for jesus rex, and go with the evidence, which parsimoniously shows (of course) that there really has been no tinkering with natural cumulative selection with regards bio-diversity. and with regards "origins", if it's unfalsifiable, then it's not for human consumption. of course, science can still deal with unfalsifiables way better than your dirty religion. it's called the law of economy of explanation. science may not be able to explain what caused the very first thing, but it can say that so far it seems more likely that no god was involved. if you don't like it, then just keep waiting on jesus and that glorious rapture.
2. Your presupposition is that science has no evidence for God, but that is only an opinion.
sigh. no rex. the little gap that your jesus now fills is so tiny, that it suits his immature personality.
a lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. there is the same lack of evidence that santa rides around on xmas eve. get with the program. if it were only an opinion, then it would be me saying "there is no evidence" while gods voice from the sky booms down and drowns me out. until then, i have intellectual freedom, and you have magical thinking a la WTS.
3. Science looks at natural phenomena through measuring, weighing, seeing, etc. God, by definition, is not limited to the universe. Therefore,it would not be expected that physical detection of God would be found.
right, so why worship him then? sounds to me like he doesn't exist! why would he spend so much time creating our realm, and leave no tracks at all? silly really, you and your beliefs.
4. YOUR Science obviously clashes with the very observable order (first cause, irreducable complexity) and magnificence in the universe, as per my paste of numerous articles that are much more reasonable.
he he. if you say so rex, if you say so, then it must be true. just like your ancient ape heros, all you have to do is wish with all your childish imagination, and presto! truth!
5. You can't answer the God question, nor the Origins question. You've no business putting the burden of proof on anyone else.
both questions are already answered with parsimony. please stop being such a fool. ooops, too late.
i am going to go a step further, and advance your own argument for you, since you seem woefully incapable of it yourself.
to ask me to prove that god doesn't exist (why would i try to prove he does?) is like asking me to prove to you that Zeus doesn't exist. you don't ask stupid questions like that without expecting to get slapped up side the head.
to ask me to explain origins, is like asking for a miracle. as science has not yet helped us, although it's track record for eventually getting to these things is 101% better than religion's.
let me put it this way to you rex: science cannot explain origins that well. your explanation from ancient goat herders is much, much worse. why, you may wail? because your explanation creates more unfalsifiable questions than there are answers for. did santa make his rounds last xmas? how can we ever know?! it's (gasp!) unfalsifiable! we can have a little probability though. most likely he didn't, because most likely he doesn't exist.
did god create the universe? he most likely didn't, because he most likely doesn't exist. it's simple. it's parsimonious. it's likely, but no one can know for sure. YOU, would do well to stop acting as though YOU KNOW for sure. it's simply dumb, for you and the god you claim heritage to.
you say some ancient middle-eastern neolithic's god created the universe? well, since this is a completely unparsimonious and extraordinary claim, you will have to provide extraordinary evidence in a parsimonious fashion before anyone will take you seriously. you're the one making the positive assertions. i am making negative statements via parsimony. the burden of proof is on you.
your best, best argument is from design and ignorance. "well, i don't know george...it's all so complicated. it musta have come froms God Jesus. i can't explain how, or test it because it's impossible to test, but i can feel it in my heart that it's the only way!"
-
SeymourButts
LoL, Tetra...when I read this
i will never stop loving you. (smooch, affirm, smooch, affirm).
I pictured it instantly and laughed so hard that my ice cream came out of my nose!!
-
tetrapod.sapien
, he he, ya. i get so bored replying to the same old tired crap coming from this guy, that i get a bit distracted from the task at hand. he he.
i forgot one:
Let me answer for Elderwho: READ GENESIS
i did. that's how i became an atheist.
ts
-
Narkissos
The universe exists. It is not infinitely old. If it were it would have run out of energy long ago.
When exactly?