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

[PK1]

Maybe, if you have a scientific mind.

I have a scientific mind. I'm an engineer. What do you do for a living?

Engineers are not scientists, usually; they use scientific knowledge.
I'm a behavioral scientist in the field of academic developmental psychology.

 

[PK1]

You're putting the cart before the horse.
An objective evaluation, as in scientific epistemology (a posteriori), starts with a "null hypothesis", then looks at the data (your "tangible items") to see if an "alternative hypothesis" explains the data pattern significantly better.

Your teleological "evidence" (design argument) is primitive compared to better alternative explanations since Darwin came on the scene.
However, no one can prove the existence of any god or gods with today's evidence.
If you want to believe with weak "evidence" (& I'm being kind), then i wish you well in your pursuit of happiness, but a God delusion won't work for me.

Don't give me your mumbo jumbo bullshit crap and stop being a pussy. Do you want me to prove God exists to you or or not? If so, I will need to use what He has created as evidence. Well? What's it going to be? Are you secure in your beliefs or not? Are you afraid of being proven wrong?

As i requested MANY times before, give me your objective evidence that any god exists!
You are beating around the bush because you cannot prove anything.

My objective evidence starts with the Creation of the universe and the evolution of matter. Do you have a problem with that?

Wrong. You know there is space/matter/energy/time outside your neighborhood on Earth, as most people born in modern times.
You know NOTHING about any "creation", and maybe you have some knowledge about cosmic or bio evolution. Maybe, if you have a scientific mind.
Your "God" concept, whatever detail you attach to it (not much), is a fantasy that seems to make you feel good.

If you would stop denying my use of the tangible evidence of my argument, then you will find out what I know about space and time and the evolution of the universe and how that proves there was a creator. Are you scared or something?

We're going in circles.
You don't understand objective, rational evidence.

 

[Czernobog]

As i requested MANY times before, give me your objective evidence that any god exists!
You are beating around the bush because you cannot prove anything.

My objective evidence starts with the Creation of the universe and the evolution of matter. Do you have a problem with that?

No problem whatsoever. You are starting from "the universe was created". Okay. And your evidence to support that claim is?

The big bang theory.

There is no part of the Big Bang Theory that posits the universe was created.

Semantics. Space and time had a beginning. No... let me correct... it was created from nearly equal parts of matter and anti-matter.

I would agree, with the exception of your use of the word "created". it came into being through a fusion of matter, and anti-matter on a quantum scale. However, to say it was created still implies evidence of a creator, which you have yet to introduce.

 

[ding]

Don't give me your mumbo jumbo bullshit crap and stop being a pussy. Do you want me to prove God exists to you or or not? If so, I will need to use what He has created as evidence. Well? What's it going to be? Are you secure in your beliefs or not? Are you afraid of being proven wrong?

As i requested MANY times before, give me your objective evidence that any god exists!
You are beating around the bush because you cannot prove anything.

My objective evidence starts with the Creation of the universe and the evolution of matter. Do you have a problem with that?

Wrong. You know there is space/matter/energy/time outside your neighborhood on Earth, as most people born in modern times.
You know NOTHING about any "creation", and maybe you have some knowledge about cosmic or bio evolution. Maybe, if you have a scientific mind.
Your "God" concept, whatever detail you attach to it (not much), is a fantasy that seems to make you feel good.

If you would stop denying my use of the tangible evidence of my argument, then you will find out what I know about space and time and the evolution of the universe and how that proves there was a creator. Are you scared or something?

We're going in circles.
You don't understand objective, rational evidence.

What evidence do you think there is exactly besides what He created?

 

[ding]

My objective evidence starts with the Creation of the universe and the evolution of matter. Do you have a problem with that?

No problem whatsoever. You are starting from "the universe was created". Okay. And your evidence to support that claim is?

The big bang theory.

There is no part of the Big Bang Theory that posits the universe was created.

Semantics. Space and time had a beginning. No... let me correct... it was created from nearly equal parts of matter and anti-matter.

I would agree, with the exception of your use of the word "created". it came into being through a fusion of matter, and anti-matter on a quantum scale. However, to say it was created still implies evidence of a creator, which you have yet to introduce.

Yeah, semantics what difference does that make?

 

[ding]

Maybe, if you have a scientific mind.

I have a scientific mind. I'm an engineer. What do you do for a living?

Engineers are not scientists, usually; they use scientific knowledge.
I'm a behavioral scientist in the field of academic developmental psychology.

Engineering is the commercial application of science. We're pretty well versed in physical phenomenon. Are you saying that engineers are less equipped to understand physics than a behavior scientist in the field of academic developmental psychology? Exactly what degree do you have?

 

[Czernobog]

No problem whatsoever. You are starting from "the universe was created". Okay. And your evidence to support that claim is?

The big bang theory.

There is no part of the Big Bang Theory that posits the universe was created.

Semantics. Space and time had a beginning. No... let me correct... it was created from nearly equal parts of matter and anti-matter.

I would agree, with the exception of your use of the word "created". it came into being through a fusion of matter, and anti-matter on a quantum scale. However, to say it was created still implies evidence of a creator, which you have yet to introduce.

Yeah, semantics what difference does that make?

It's not semantics. By saying it is nothing more than "semantics" suggests that "coming into being" means the same thing as "created". Except it doesn't. The latter implies an outside force directed the fusion, the former does not. If you want to say that the fusion was directed by an outside force, you need to present evidence of that direction.

 

[ding]

The big bang theory.

There is no part of the Big Bang Theory that posits the universe was created.

Semantics. Space and time had a beginning. No... let me correct... it was created from nearly equal parts of matter and anti-matter.

I would agree, with the exception of your use of the word "created". it came into being through a fusion of matter, and anti-matter on a quantum scale. However, to say it was created still implies evidence of a creator, which you have yet to introduce.

Yeah, semantics what difference does that make?

It's not semantics. By saying it is nothing more than "semantics" suggests that "coming into being" means the same thing as "created". Except it doesn't. The latter implies an outside force directed the fusion, the former does not. If you want to say that the fusion was directed by an outside force, you need to present evidence of that direction.

No. It is not. It is a given that that is what is being debated and discussed. I am not asking for your agreement. I am stating my position.

 

[Czernobog]

There is no part of the Big Bang Theory that posits the universe was created.

Semantics. Space and time had a beginning. No... let me correct... it was created from nearly equal parts of matter and anti-matter.

I would agree, with the exception of your use of the word "created". it came into being through a fusion of matter, and anti-matter on a quantum scale. However, to say it was created still implies evidence of a creator, which you have yet to introduce.

Yeah, semantics what difference does that make?

It's not semantics. By saying it is nothing more than "semantics" suggests that "coming into being" means the same thing as "created". Except it doesn't. The latter implies an outside force directed the fusion, the former does not. If you want to say that the fusion was directed by an outside force, you need to present evidence of that direction.

No. It is not. It is a given that that is what is being debated and discussed. I am not asking for your agreement. I am stating my position.

That's just it. It's not a given. Stating your position is fine, but it was your contention that the universe presented evidence of a creator. You cannot hope to do that, when your "evidence" requires that I accept that the universe was created. This is what both PK1, and I have been trying to tell you. You claim to have evidence of a creator, but instead ask us to simply accept your premise that the universe was created. You continue to fail in your goal.

What you are saying, is "I can demonstrate evidence that the universe was created, as long as you already agree that the universe was created,"

Surely you can see the flaw in that claim.

 

[ding]

Semantics. Space and time had a beginning. No... let me correct... it was created from nearly equal parts of matter and anti-matter.

I would agree, with the exception of your use of the word "created". it came into being through a fusion of matter, and anti-matter on a quantum scale. However, to say it was created still implies evidence of a creator, which you have yet to introduce.

Yeah, semantics what difference does that make?

It's not semantics. By saying it is nothing more than "semantics" suggests that "coming into being" means the same thing as "created". Except it doesn't. The latter implies an outside force directed the fusion, the former does not. If you want to say that the fusion was directed by an outside force, you need to present evidence of that direction.

No. It is not. It is a given that that is what is being debated and discussed. I am not asking for your agreement. I am stating my position.

That's just it. It's not a given. Stating your position is fine, but it was your contention that the universe presented evidence of a creator. You cannot hope to do that, when your "evidence" requires that I accept that the universe was created. This is what both PK1, and I have been trying to tell you. You claim to have evidence of a creator, but instead ask us to simply accept your premise that the universe was created. You continue to fail in your goal.

What you are saying, is "I can demonstrate evidence that the universe was created, as long as you already agree that the universe was created,"

Surely you can see the flaw in that claim.

I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs.

 

[Czernobog]

I would agree, with the exception of your use of the word "created". it came into being through a fusion of matter, and anti-matter on a quantum scale. However, to say it was created still implies evidence of a creator, which you have yet to introduce.

Yeah, semantics what difference does that make?

It's not semantics. By saying it is nothing more than "semantics" suggests that "coming into being" means the same thing as "created". Except it doesn't. The latter implies an outside force directed the fusion, the former does not. If you want to say that the fusion was directed by an outside force, you need to present evidence of that direction.

No. It is not. It is a given that that is what is being debated and discussed. I am not asking for your agreement. I am stating my position.

That's just it. It's not a given. Stating your position is fine, but it was your contention that the universe presented evidence of a creator. You cannot hope to do that, when your "evidence" requires that I accept that the universe was created. This is what both PK1, and I have been trying to tell you. You claim to have evidence of a creator, but instead ask us to simply accept your premise that the universe was created. You continue to fail in your goal.

What you are saying, is "I can demonstrate evidence that the universe was created, as long as you already agree that the universe was created,"

Surely you can see the flaw in that claim.

I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs.

So, you just started this thread for the the people who already agree with you?

 

[ding]

Yeah, semantics what difference does that make?

It's not semantics. By saying it is nothing more than "semantics" suggests that "coming into being" means the same thing as "created". Except it doesn't. The latter implies an outside force directed the fusion, the former does not. If you want to say that the fusion was directed by an outside force, you need to present evidence of that direction.

No. It is not. It is a given that that is what is being debated and discussed. I am not asking for your agreement. I am stating my position.

That's just it. It's not a given. Stating your position is fine, but it was your contention that the universe presented evidence of a creator. You cannot hope to do that, when your "evidence" requires that I accept that the universe was created. This is what both PK1, and I have been trying to tell you. You claim to have evidence of a creator, but instead ask us to simply accept your premise that the universe was created. You continue to fail in your goal.

What you are saying, is "I can demonstrate evidence that the universe was created, as long as you already agree that the universe was created,"

Surely you can see the flaw in that claim.

I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs.

So, you just started this thread for the the people who already agree with you?

That is the exact opposite of what I stated in post# 690. I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs. I started this thread because I believe that
reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

 

[Czernobog]

It's not semantics. By saying it is nothing more than "semantics" suggests that "coming into being" means the same thing as "created". Except it doesn't. The latter implies an outside force directed the fusion, the former does not. If you want to say that the fusion was directed by an outside force, you need to present evidence of that direction.

No. It is not. It is a given that that is what is being debated and discussed. I am not asking for your agreement. I am stating my position.

That's just it. It's not a given. Stating your position is fine, but it was your contention that the universe presented evidence of a creator. You cannot hope to do that, when your "evidence" requires that I accept that the universe was created. This is what both PK1, and I have been trying to tell you. You claim to have evidence of a creator, but instead ask us to simply accept your premise that the universe was created. You continue to fail in your goal.

What you are saying, is "I can demonstrate evidence that the universe was created, as long as you already agree that the universe was created,"

Surely you can see the flaw in that claim.

I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs.

So, you just started this thread for the the people who already agree with you?

That is the exact opposite of what I stated in post# 690. I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs. I started this thread because I believe that
reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

But for what purpose did you start this thread? You have made the motivation for starting this thread clear, repeatedly. However, you seem a little foggy on the purpose of your thread.

If it is not to convince anyone else that your belief is reasonable, then to what end did you begin your thread?

 

[ding]

No. It is not. It is a given that that is what is being debated and discussed. I am not asking for your agreement. I am stating my position.

That's just it. It's not a given. Stating your position is fine, but it was your contention that the universe presented evidence of a creator. You cannot hope to do that, when your "evidence" requires that I accept that the universe was created. This is what both PK1, and I have been trying to tell you. You claim to have evidence of a creator, but instead ask us to simply accept your premise that the universe was created. You continue to fail in your goal.

What you are saying, is "I can demonstrate evidence that the universe was created, as long as you already agree that the universe was created,"

Surely you can see the flaw in that claim.

I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs.

So, you just started this thread for the the people who already agree with you?

That is the exact opposite of what I stated in post# 690. I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs. I started this thread because I believe that
reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

But for what purpose did you start this thread? You have made the motivation for starting this thread clear, repeatedly. However, you seem a little foggy on the purpose of your thread.

If it is not to convince anyone else that your belief is reasonable, then to what end did you begin your thread?

Trust me... the confusion is all yours. For what purpose did I start this thread? To express my belief that I believe that reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

 

[Czernobog]

That's just it. It's not a given. Stating your position is fine, but it was your contention that the universe presented evidence of a creator. You cannot hope to do that, when your "evidence" requires that I accept that the universe was created. This is what both PK1, and I have been trying to tell you. You claim to have evidence of a creator, but instead ask us to simply accept your premise that the universe was created. You continue to fail in your goal.

What you are saying, is "I can demonstrate evidence that the universe was created, as long as you already agree that the universe was created,"

Surely you can see the flaw in that claim.

I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs.

So, you just started this thread for the the people who already agree with you?

That is the exact opposite of what I stated in post# 690. I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs. I started this thread because I believe that
reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

But for what purpose did you start this thread? You have made the motivation for starting this thread clear, repeatedly. However, you seem a little foggy on the purpose of your thread.

If it is not to convince anyone else that your belief is reasonable, then to what end did you begin your thread?

Trust me... the confusion is all yours. For what purpose did I start this thread? To express my belief that I believe that reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

Oh. Philosophical masturbation. Okay. Have fun with that.

 

[ding]

I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs.

So, you just started this thread for the the people who already agree with you?

That is the exact opposite of what I stated in post# 690. I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs. I started this thread because I believe that
reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

But for what purpose did you start this thread? You have made the motivation for starting this thread clear, repeatedly. However, you seem a little foggy on the purpose of your thread.

If it is not to convince anyone else that your belief is reasonable, then to what end did you begin your thread?

Trust me... the confusion is all yours. For what purpose did I start this thread? To express my belief that I believe that reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

Oh. Philosophical masturbation. Okay. Have fun with that.

Have fun with your mental illness.

Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts

To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:


Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1] See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
1. Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)

2. Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)

3. Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)

4. Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)

5. Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)

6. Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism

7. Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)

8. Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)

9. Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)

10. Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)

11. Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)

 

[Czernobog]

So, you just started this thread for the the people who already agree with you?

That is the exact opposite of what I stated in post# 690. I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs. I started this thread because I believe that
reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

But for what purpose did you start this thread? You have made the motivation for starting this thread clear, repeatedly. However, you seem a little foggy on the purpose of your thread.

If it is not to convince anyone else that your belief is reasonable, then to what end did you begin your thread?

Trust me... the confusion is all yours. For what purpose did I start this thread? To express my belief that I believe that reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

Oh. Philosophical masturbation. Okay. Have fun with that.

Have fun with your mental illness.

Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts

To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:


Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1] See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
1. Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)

2. Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)

3. Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)

4. Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)

5. Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)

6. Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism

7. Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)

8. Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)

9. Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)

10. Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)

11. Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)

Conservapedia?!?! Really? Of course it cites "studies". It cites studies that were designed to produce the results that the conservative designers of the studies wanted them to. See, this is what atheists, and lovers of science scoff at.

You accuse us of only liking science when it says what we want it to, and use biased research projects pretending to be scientific studies as your evidence. Kind of like your lame attempt to claim that the universe is evidence of a creator, which has been debunked several times on this thread, at which point you just dismiss your failure, because not doing so would force you to take an honest, objective reassessment of your position.


Like I said, philosophical masturbation. Have fun with that.

 

[PK1]

Maybe, if you have a scientific mind.

I have a scientific mind. I'm an engineer. What do you do for a living?

Engineers are not scientists, usually; they use scientific knowledge.
I'm a behavioral scientist in the field of academic developmental psychology.

Engineering is the commercial application of science. We're pretty well versed in physical phenomenon. Are you saying that engineers are less equipped to understand physics than a behavior scientist in the field of academic developmental psychology? Exactly what degree do you have?

What i am saying is that most engineers are much less equipped to understand scientific methods & related epistemology concepts. You are a good case.
Although you may understand some physics knowledge that resulted from scientific research, the actual methods & philosophy of science interpretations used to produce that knowledge is another cognitive matter (pun intended).

I have a strong scientific methodology background that is necessary in the "soft sciences" like psychology where many variables are involved in research & analysis. Compared to most engineers, and I know many, I have a much broader education that includes philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, research design, statistics, physical sciences, biological sciences, anthropology, sociology, social psychology, and various psychology subjects, especially developmental issues, including self-organizing processes without a "creator" in addition to influences from external sources, both cognitive and physical.

For privacy reasons, and not to appear that I am showing off my advanced training/research at multiple major universities, i will refrain from additional specifics.
In this discussion forum, the focus should be on what we say and its justification.

 

[ding]

That is the exact opposite of what I stated in post# 690. I have never stated or expected anyone to believe my beliefs. I started this thread because I believe that
reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

But for what purpose did you start this thread? You have made the motivation for starting this thread clear, repeatedly. However, you seem a little foggy on the purpose of your thread.

If it is not to convince anyone else that your belief is reasonable, then to what end did you begin your thread?

Trust me... the confusion is all yours. For what purpose did I start this thread? To express my belief that I believe that reason and experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator.

Oh. Philosophical masturbation. Okay. Have fun with that.

Have fun with your mental illness.

Atheism and negative emotions/thoughts

To see relevant studies and historical data about the atheist population's highly unusual propensity to display negative emotions such as depression, anger, anxiety and boredom, please see:


Research suggests that irreligiousity is a causal factor for domestic violence.[1] See: Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence
1. Atheism and depression (Cites relevant studies about atheism increasing depression)

2. Atheism and suicide (Atheists have a higher suicide rate than the general public)

3. Militant atheism and anger (Studies and historical information about atheism and anger)

4. Irreligion and domestic violence and Secular Europe and domestic violence (Research indicates that religiosity lowers one's propensity to engage in domestic violence)

5. Militant atheism (Historical information about atheism/violence/intolerance)

6. Atheism and emotional intelligence (Cites relevant studies about atheists having lower emotional intelligence). See also: Atheism and alcoholism

7. Atheism and social intelligence (Cites relevant studies and historical data showing lower interpersonal skills within the atheist population)

8. Atheism and death anxiety (Cites relevant studies and historical data related to atheism/death anxiety and related matters)

9. Atheism and meaninglessness (Cites relevant information from studies and history)

10. Atheism and irrationality (Cites studies on irreligion/irrationality/superstitious beliefs and other relevant information)

11. Atheism, obesity and loneliness (Cites studies and other relevant data)

Conservapedia?!?! Really? Of course it cites "studies". It cites studies that were designed to produce the results that the conservative designers of the studies wanted them to. See, this is what atheists, and lovers of science scoff at.

You accuse us of only liking science when it says what we want it to, and use biased research projects pretending to be scientific studies as your evidence. Kind of like your lame attempt to claim that the universe is evidence of a creator, which has been debunked several times on this thread, at which point you just dismiss your failure, because not doing so would force you to take an honest, objective reassessment of your position.


Like I said, philosophical masturbation. Have fun with that.

Their well documented mental health problems and the 200 million murders in the 20th century sure look like signs of what not to do.

 

[ding]

Maybe, if you have a scientific mind.

I have a scientific mind. I'm an engineer. What do you do for a living?

Engineers are not scientists, usually; they use scientific knowledge.
I'm a behavioral scientist in the field of academic developmental psychology.

Engineering is the commercial application of science. We're pretty well versed in physical phenomenon. Are you saying that engineers are less equipped to understand physics than a behavior scientist in the field of academic developmental psychology? Exactly what degree do you have?

What i am saying is that most engineers are much less equipped to understand scientific methods & related epistemology concepts. You are a good case.
Although you may understand some physics knowledge that resulted from scientific research, the actual methods & philosophy of science interpretations used to produce that knowledge is another cognitive matter (pun intended).

I have a strong scientific methodology background that is necessary in the "soft sciences" like psychology where many variables are involved in research & analysis. Compared to most engineers, and I know many, I have a much broader education that includes philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, research design, statistics, physical sciences, biological sciences, anthropology, sociology, social psychology, and various psychology subjects, especially developmental issues, including self-organizing processes without a "creator" in addition to influences from external sources, both cognitive and physical.

For privacy reasons, and not to appear that I am showing off my advanced training/research at multiple major universities, i will refrain from additional specifics.
In this discussion forum, the focus should be on what we say and its justification.

My argument is based on the evolution of matter. Do you know much about that?