Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[ding]

It now appears that czernobog has refused my invitation. I guess he wasn't that interested in finding out the answer he has been so desperately seeking.

Pussy.

 

[Czernobog]

How so? Haven't you ever created anything? Could I not use what you created to learn things about you?

You'd need some evidence I had created it before that could occur.

No. I don't need to know that you were the one who specifically created it to learn things about you from your creation.

First of all, when you create something is your creation the realization of your intentions? In other words, do you set out to make a cell phone and end up making a turkey dinner?

Except that presumes a creator. You can only learn things about a creator from the things they created, if you first presume that the thing you are examining was, in fact, created by someone. Your OP asserts that reason, and experience proves the existence of a creator. Except that it doesn't.

 

[ding]

How so? Haven't you ever created anything? Could I not use what you created to learn things about you?

You'd need some evidence I had created it before that could occur.

No. I don't need to know that you were the one who specifically created it to learn things about you from your creation.

First of all, when you create something is your creation the realization of your intentions? In other words, do you set out to make a cell phone and end up making a turkey dinner?

Except that presumes a creator. You can only learn things about a creator from the things they created, if you first presume that the thing you are examining was, in fact, created by someone. Your OP asserts that reason, and experience proves the existence of a creator. Except that it doesn't.

No. First we are going to discuss what evidence is and how it can be used to gain information. Fair enough?

When you create something is your creation usually the realization of your intention?

 

[Czernobog]

How so? Haven't you ever created anything? Could I not use what you created to learn things about you?

You'd need some evidence I had created it before that could occur.

No. I don't need to know that you were the one who specifically created it to learn things about you from your creation.

First of all, when you create something is your creation the realization of your intentions? In other words, do you set out to make a cell phone and end up making a turkey dinner?

Except that presumes a creator. You can only learn things about a creator from the things they created, if you first presume that the thing you are examining was, in fact, created by someone. Your OP asserts that reason, and experience proves the existence of a creator. Except that it doesn't.

No. First we are going to discuss what evidence is and how it can be used to gain information. Fair enough?

When you create something is your creation usually the realization of your intention?

Nope. You are starting from the premise of creation. First you have to prove that what you are examining was created.

 

[ding]

How so? Haven't you ever created anything? Could I not use what you created to learn things about you?

You'd need some evidence I had created it before that could occur.

No. I don't need to know that you were the one who specifically created it to learn things about you from your creation.

First of all, when you create something is your creation the realization of your intentions? In other words, do you set out to make a cell phone and end up making a turkey dinner?

Except that presumes a creator. You can only learn things about a creator from the things they created, if you first presume that the thing you are examining was, in fact, created by someone. Your OP asserts that reason, and experience proves the existence of a creator. Except that it doesn't.

No. First we are going to discuss what evidence is and how it can be used to gain information. Fair enough?

When you create something is your creation usually the realization of your intention?

Nope. You are starting from the premise of creation. First you have to prove that what you are examining was created.

No. Let's start with the creation of a cell phone. Ok? If you set out to make a cell phone, do you end up making a turkey dinner instead?

We'll get to God soon enough. Be patient. First we must establish the attributes of evidence and understand how it is used. We are going to do this using our own experiences. Unless you are afraid, that is.

 

[ding]

The use of proxies in science is common.

 

[Czernobog]

You'd need some evidence I had created it before that could occur.

No. I don't need to know that you were the one who specifically created it to learn things about you from your creation.

First of all, when you create something is your creation the realization of your intentions? In other words, do you set out to make a cell phone and end up making a turkey dinner?

Except that presumes a creator. You can only learn things about a creator from the things they created, if you first presume that the thing you are examining was, in fact, created by someone. Your OP asserts that reason, and experience proves the existence of a creator. Except that it doesn't.

No. First we are going to discuss what evidence is and how it can be used to gain information. Fair enough?

When you create something is your creation usually the realization of your intention?

Nope. You are starting from the premise of creation. First you have to prove that what you are examining was created.

No. Let's start with the creation of a cell phone. Ok? If you set out to make a cell phone, do you end up making a turkey dinner instead?

We'll get to God soon enough. Be patient. First we must establish the attributes of evidence and understand how it is used. We are going to do this using our own experiences. Unless you are afraid, that is.

Nope. I will not concede to creation. If you want to prove the existence of a creator, you must first prove that anything was created.

 

[ding]

No. I don't need to know that you were the one who specifically created it to learn things about you from your creation.

First of all, when you create something is your creation the realization of your intentions? In other words, do you set out to make a cell phone and end up making a turkey dinner?

Except that presumes a creator. You can only learn things about a creator from the things they created, if you first presume that the thing you are examining was, in fact, created by someone. Your OP asserts that reason, and experience proves the existence of a creator. Except that it doesn't.

No. First we are going to discuss what evidence is and how it can be used to gain information. Fair enough?

When you create something is your creation usually the realization of your intention?

Nope. You are starting from the premise of creation. First you have to prove that what you are examining was created.

No. Let's start with the creation of a cell phone. Ok? If you set out to make a cell phone, do you end up making a turkey dinner instead?

We'll get to God soon enough. Be patient. First we must establish the attributes of evidence and understand how it is used. We are going to do this using our own experiences. Unless you are afraid, that is.

Nope. I will not concede to creation. If you want to prove the existence of a creator, you must first prove that anything was created.

So you can't tell me about your own experiences? The use of proxies in science is common. You created a cell phone. You do know what a cell phone is, right?

 

[Czernobog]

The use of proxies in science is common.

Not to usde in place of actual proven hypotheses they aren't. You want to prove creator, you must first prove creation.

 

[ding]

No. I don't need to know that you were the one who specifically created it to learn things about you from your creation.

First of all, when you create something is your creation the realization of your intentions? In other words, do you set out to make a cell phone and end up making a turkey dinner?

Except that presumes a creator. You can only learn things about a creator from the things they created, if you first presume that the thing you are examining was, in fact, created by someone. Your OP asserts that reason, and experience proves the existence of a creator. Except that it doesn't.

No. First we are going to discuss what evidence is and how it can be used to gain information. Fair enough?

When you create something is your creation usually the realization of your intention?

Nope. You are starting from the premise of creation. First you have to prove that what you are examining was created.

No. Let's start with the creation of a cell phone. Ok? If you set out to make a cell phone, do you end up making a turkey dinner instead?

We'll get to God soon enough. Be patient. First we must establish the attributes of evidence and understand how it is used. We are going to do this using our own experiences. Unless you are afraid, that is.

Nope. I will not concede to creation. If you want to prove the existence of a creator, you must first prove that anything was created.

Maybe you would like to start with a turkey sandwich instead. You do know how to make a turkey sandwich, right?

 

[ding]

The use of proxies in science is common.

Not to usde in place of actual proven hypotheses they aren't. You want to prove creator, you must first prove creation.

Dude, don't be a pussy. We are discussing what evidence is.

 

[ding]

We'll get to God soon enough, pussy.

 

[Czernobog]

Except that presumes a creator. You can only learn things about a creator from the things they created, if you first presume that the thing you are examining was, in fact, created by someone. Your OP asserts that reason, and experience proves the existence of a creator. Except that it doesn't.

No. First we are going to discuss what evidence is and how it can be used to gain information. Fair enough?

When you create something is your creation usually the realization of your intention?

Nope. You are starting from the premise of creation. First you have to prove that what you are examining was created.

No. Let's start with the creation of a cell phone. Ok? If you set out to make a cell phone, do you end up making a turkey dinner instead?

We'll get to God soon enough. Be patient. First we must establish the attributes of evidence and understand how it is used. We are going to do this using our own experiences. Unless you are afraid, that is.

Nope. I will not concede to creation. If you want to prove the existence of a creator, you must first prove that anything was created.

So you can't tell me about your own experiences? The use of proxies in science is common. You created a cell phone. You do know what a cell phone is, right?

Not to skip a proof they are not. You want me to concede that creation is a fact. I will not do that. Prove that the universe was created.

 

[Czernobog]

The use of proxies in science is common.

Not to usde in place of actual proven hypotheses they aren't. You want to prove creator, you must first prove creation.

Dude, don't be a pussy. We are discussing what evidence is.

No, we're nbot. You claim that experience, and reason proves a creator. And to do so, you want me to assume a creator. It doesn't work that way. You want to prove a creator then prove it. Quit expecting me to concede to a creator.

 

[Czernobog]

We'll get to God soon enough, pussy.

No we won't fucktard. You do not get to "prove" your creator, by forcing me to concede that there is a creator. Either present your prove, or admit that you can't.

 

[ding]

No. First we are going to discuss what evidence is and how it can be used to gain information. Fair enough?

When you create something is your creation usually the realization of your intention?

Nope. You are starting from the premise of creation. First you have to prove that what you are examining was created.

No. Let's start with the creation of a cell phone. Ok? If you set out to make a cell phone, do you end up making a turkey dinner instead?

We'll get to God soon enough. Be patient. First we must establish the attributes of evidence and understand how it is used. We are going to do this using our own experiences. Unless you are afraid, that is.

Nope. I will not concede to creation. If you want to prove the existence of a creator, you must first prove that anything was created.

So you can't tell me about your own experiences? The use of proxies in science is common. You created a cell phone. You do know what a cell phone is, right?

Not to skip a proof they are not. You want me to concede that creation is a fact. I will not do that. Prove that the universe was created.

I have not gotten within a 100 miles of creation yet. I can't even get you to agree on what the attributes of generic evidence is or what kind of information can be obtained from generic evidence. You know why? Because you know if you answer my questions you will lose.

 

[ding]

The use of proxies in science is common.

Not to usde in place of actual proven hypotheses they aren't. You want to prove creator, you must first prove creation.

Dude, don't be a pussy. We are discussing what evidence is.

No, we're nbot. You claim that experience, and reason proves a creator. And to do so, you want me to assume a creator. It doesn't work that way. You want to prove a creator then prove it. Quit expecting me to concede to a creator.

Your experience and reason with creating things. It is called a proxy. Quite common in science. You want me to prove creation before I can define evidence. It doesn't work that way. First we need to agree that tangible items can be used as evidence.

 

[ding]

We'll get to God soon enough, pussy.

No we won't fucktard. You do not get to "prove" your creator, by forcing me to concede that there is a creator. Either present your prove, or admit that you can't.

I'm not the fucktard who won't admit that tangible items can be used as evidence, lol.

 

[Czernobog]

Nope. You are starting from the premise of creation. First you have to prove that what you are examining was created.

No. Let's start with the creation of a cell phone. Ok? If you set out to make a cell phone, do you end up making a turkey dinner instead?

We'll get to God soon enough. Be patient. First we must establish the attributes of evidence and understand how it is used. We are going to do this using our own experiences. Unless you are afraid, that is.

Nope. I will not concede to creation. If you want to prove the existence of a creator, you must first prove that anything was created.

So you can't tell me about your own experiences? The use of proxies in science is common. You created a cell phone. You do know what a cell phone is, right?

Not to skip a proof they are not. You want me to concede that creation is a fact. I will not do that. Prove that the universe was created.

I have not gotten within a 100 miles of creation yet. I can't even get you to agree on what the attributes of generic evidence is or what kind of information can be obtained from generic evidence. You know why? Because you know if you answer my questions you will lose.

Yes, you have. "...the creation of a cell phone". You want to present an object that you know has been created, because you have seen it being created. In doing so, you force me to concede to a creator. Doesn't work that way. Just because a phone is a created object, that does not dictrate that everything in nature was also created.

You do not get to force nme to concede to a creator. Try again.

 

[ding]

We'll get to God soon enough, pussy.

No we won't fucktard. You do not get to "prove" your creator, by forcing me to concede that there is a creator. Either present your prove, or admit that you can't.

Can tangible item be used as evidence at a crime scene?