In honor of Jewish Heritage month

[alang1216]

That's because there's no evidence you will accept because you can't accept God exists.

I can't accept God exists and then try to find evidence confirming that premise. As I see it, that would be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[expat500]

As we all know, Jews run the whole world

No. We don’t ALL know.

 

[alang1216]

No. We don’t ALL know.

I didn't think I had to label it as sarcasm.

 

[ding]

I recall I claimed that human nature came from nature so I'd say we're even. Of course I can offer evidence of nature, that is more that you have done.

Nature comes from God. So we aren't even. To this point I have offered evidence - human nature - and you have offered nothing. In fact when I asked you for your evidence you argued you can't prove a negative. Remember?

 

[ding]

And you know that how?


I could say the same about you as evidenced by your previous sentences.


Man is a social animal so a 'preference for good', as determined by his society, would be an evolutionary plus and be selected for.

I know that because that's the simplest explanation. One being, entity or whatever you want to call it that has no beginning and no end, is eternal and unchanging as the source of existence.

Actually you can't say that about my previous sentences because I have been describing God without theological context. You on the other hand are incapable of discussing God unless it is in the context of the Abrahamic God.

And yet even when society determined what was "good" (i.e. slavery, incest, treating women poorly, etc.) there were always those who knew better. Your argument for relativity is very weak.

 

[ding]

It tells you much about my creation but very little about me as the creator. You have taken creation and, using evidence not found in creation itself, have built a whole vision of the creator.

No, I just explained what it told me about you. I'm using your experiences as a creator as a proxy which is quite common in science as most things are indirectly measured which means what they are measuring is literally a proxy for what they are investigating.

 

[ding]

I can't accept God exists and then try to find evidence confirming that premise. As I see it, that would be putting the cart before the horse.

But you can objectively analyze the case for God's existence which is all I am asking for. You should be exploring both sides without bias. You aren't doing that.

 

[alang1216]

Nature comes from God. So we aren't even.

That is your claim but you offered no evidence only that your claim could not be disproven.

To this point I have offered evidence - human nature - and you have offered nothing. In fact when I asked you for your evidence you argued you can't prove a negative. Remember?

see above

 

[alang1216]

I know that because that's the simplest explanation. One being, entity or whatever you want to call it that has no beginning and no end, is eternal and unchanging as the source of existence.

The simplest explanation is that there is no supernatural being at all.

Actually you can't say that about my previous sentences because I have been describing God without theological context. You on the other hand are incapable of discussing God unless it is in the context of the Abrahamic God.

So it is just a coincidence that your God and the Abrahamic God are indistinguishable?

And yet even when society determined what was "good" (i.e. slavery, incest, treating women poorly, etc.) there were always those who knew better. Your argument for relativity is very weak.

In every society there are those that disagree with the established norms. Some prove to be progressive some prove to be reactionary.

 

[ding]

That is your claim but you offered no evidence only that your claim could not be disproven.


see above

Why do you keep saying that? I have offered human nature as evidence. You do have knowledge of your own human nature, right? Do you ever make immoral arguments?

 

[alang1216]

No, I just explained what it told me about you. I'm using your experiences as a creator as a proxy which is quite common in science as most things are indirectly measured which means what they are measuring is literally a proxy for what they are investigating.

 

[ding]

The simplest explanation is that there is no supernatural being at all.

You do realize something has to exist to pop a universe into existence, right? So are you arguing that nothing exists outside of space and time that could bring forth space and time?

So, no. The simplest argument that there is nothing at all outside of space and time can be dismissed. So what does exist outside of space and time must be something which is eternal. And that means it has no beginning and has no end and is unchanging. I call this God. I have no idea what you call it. Apparently you have never given this any thought.

 

[ding]

I can use your experiences as a creator as a proxy. It's a valid method of investigation.

 

[alang1216]

Why do you keep saying that? I have offered human nature as evidence. You do have knowledge of your own human nature, right? Do you ever make immoral arguments?

Human nature is NOT evidence of God any more than it is evidence of Zeus. Since we don't know the source, you can't assume it comes from God. I will be the first to admit that I can't prove there is no God, but that is not a proof there is a God.

 

[alang1216]

But you can objectively analyze the case for God's existence which is all I am asking for. You should be exploring both sides without bias. You aren't doing that.

I've been doing that since I was 12 and so far God's existence has always come up short.

 

[alang1216]

I can use your experiences as a creator as a proxy. It's a valid method of investigation.

A proxy for God? I'm flattered but even so the available information is rather limited, as I previously listed.

 

[ding]

Human nature is NOT evidence of God any more than it is evidence of Zeus. Since we don't know the source, you can't assume it comes from God. I will be the first to admit that I can't prove there is no God, but that is not a proof there is a God.

That's because you reject all evidence because you reject the premise.

 

[ding]

I've been doing that since I was 12 and so far God's existence has always come up short.

I don't believe you have. I don't believe you ever have.

 

[ding]

A proxy for God? I'm flattered but even so the available information is rather limited, as I previously listed.

Laughing leads to crying.

 

[alang1216]

That's because you reject all evidence because you reject the premise.

In science you create a theory to explain the evidence, not the other way around. I prefer the scientific method.