so where did god exist before he created the heavens?
it is in fact one mans story. with lots of contradictions I might add. this is whats so puzzling, where did anything come from?
Why did it have to "come" from anywhere?
Since He is a spirit being, He exists "nowhere", He exists outside of the psysical realm.
What is this spirit stuff made of?
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Since both theories are mystic, there’s no winner. They both cancel each other out according to the laws of physics.
One is an unfounded assertion, one is a fact and a theory, the third is under investigation. None of that has anything to do with the laws of physics in any way.
The elusive Higgs boson, the so-called "God particle," may not have been discovered despite claims of it being detected, some scientists are saying.
So? What does that have to do with religious people making unfounded assertions?
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Ok you're nitpicking again on a tangent and you don't seem the least interested in the core of the comment; I take a rest, because I don't want to engage in this sort of exercise again that only serves to derail threads and tire me out. It's your thread....and I'm out.
I've no idea how it's nitpicking to point out, in a thread about people making claims about things they cannot possibly know or quantify, that you are making claims about things you cannot possibly know or quantify.
Bye.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
This thread is taking on the tone of a secret elders meeting. Lots of smugness mixed with self congratulation mixed with an incredible vagueness.
If by "secret" you mean "open to the public" and "elder" you mean "people who aren't in charge of anything here"
and "meeting" you mean "a discussion forum", then... well, only by meaning the literal exact opposite of what you said, really.
With regard to the smug vagueness, it really would be better if theists learns how to say what they mean. Or at least know what they mean. Or what science is. Or evolution. Or their own belief system.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
In practice though, is not abiogenesis a firm belief among atheists and one which atheistic scientists are hard at work trying to find evidence for.
Why in the world would you expect those on this forum to attempt to claim what other people believe?
Yes, if someone is sincere their belief or non-belief imo should be respected. Why? We are all intelligent adults free to make our own decisions on whether God exists or not.
None of that explains why in the world I should respect the belief.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
better now?
Not really, since you've not quantified "common" or "many". It doesn't really tell me anything.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
The reason why most creationists conflate evolution with abiogenesis is understandable - albeit inaccurate - because the latter is conceptually the logical corolary of the first, even if there's no proof of that hypothesis. Most non-believers rely on that assumption, anyway.
Since you've not talked to most creationists, you certainly can speak for them and claim why they confuse things or what they assume.
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Still no answer as to why scientists make the claim that life originated from non-living matter without backing it up.
Not sure why you would say there is "still" no answer since this is the first time on this thread you've asked that.
Anyway, please provide an example of this being generally accepted by and claimed as fact by the community of scientists who study such things and it can be addressed. What can't be done is to accept your say-so that scientists (unnamed and no reference or citation their their words and published claims) they they are doing it.
So, when you provide this, we can deal with it.
Why can't respecting an individual's sincere belief be across the board? It should go both ways...Christian to Evolutionist...Evolutionist to Christian.
Why do you think it's admirable to respect a belief simply because it's "sincere"?
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
I just provided an example on this thread.
No.... no you didn't. You confused abiogenesis with evolution, but you didn't provide an example of a double-standard as you claim.
