If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[diver52]

Um...thats not proof. Ding, you are a grade a snake oil salesman. Well, grade b...i doubt anyone's buying....

You're a showman. A charlatan.

Everything that was created is evidence and proof.

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

 

[diver52]

You said you didn't have any beliefs. My overall sense is that when you say you do not believe in any god, you are expressing an opinion that there aren't any gods. A perfectly valid position, but a belief nonetheless. To lack belief requires absolute neutrality on the subject and I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely neutral. Human beings are natural believers.

I do not believe in any god(s). If you want to interpret that as a a belief that there are no gods, I can't stop you. It is semantics and of no value in the topic of this thread.

And no, the lack of belief does not require absolute neutrality on the subject. A Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus. And atheist does not. Whether the atheist believes there is no god or doesn't believe in god, the end result is the same. I don't believe in any deity.

This is not semantics, unless you mean clear communication. I stated that I had never met anyone who lacked any beliefs regarding deities. I didn't say "did not believe in gods". You introduced yourself as someone who lacked any beliefs.

The lack of belief does require neutrality. Unless you have some evidence to present which tips the scales one way or the other. In the absence of evidence, any position - positive or negative - is a belief. It can be nothing else.

So my original statement still stands. I have yet to meet anyone who lacks any beliefs regarding deities.

The standard you used was the question of the divinity of Jesus. Since I do not believe in any deity, I do not believe in his divinity. To be neutral would be to accept that Jesus may have been divine.

I provided an example, not a standard. I could as well have used Ozgarth the Worm God. But yes, to be neutral you have to accept Jesus may have been divine. Unless you have some evidence that he was or was not divine, any position other than neutrality is a belief.

I personally think Jesus was not divine. But that is a belief. I am not neutral and I have no evidence to support my opinion.

No. The definition of "Atheist" is someone who does not believe in any god or deity. The question of Jesus being divine is based on there being a god.

Its like this. If I collect stamps, I have a hobby. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

A definition is merely an attempt to describe reality. If the definition does not meet reality it is the definition which is wrong.

I go back to my original statement. I said I had never met anyone who lacked beliefs regarding gods. You seem to claim that you were such a person. A lack of belief does not mean you don't believe in something. It means you don't have any beliefs at all. A belief is an opinion, position, conclusion which is not based upon supporting evidence. There is no supporting evidence regarding gods. We wouldn't know a god if we actually met one. So any position, positive or negative, which is unsupported by evidence is a belief.

 

[ding]

Everything that was created is evidence and proof.

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

No. It is evidence that someone created it. It is evidence that the reason they created it was to sell it for a profit. It is evidence that it was created in steps. It is evidence that it a certain level of intelligence was required. It is evidence that the purpose it serves for the buyers is to provide light.

 

[ding]

Everything that was created is evidence and proof.

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

 

[diver52]

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

No. It is evidence that someone created it. It is evidence that the reason they created it was to sell it for a profit. It is evidence that it was created in steps. It is evidence that it a certain level of intelligence was required. It is evidence that the purpose it serves for the buyers is to provide light.

Then it does matter what it is evidence of. I'm willing to follow your logic along.

On what basis do you claim it is evidence someone created it?

 

[diver52]

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

No. You have to provide a connection between a fact and a cause for the fact to be evidence of the cause. A proof is considerable more involved.

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

Evidence of what?

 

[ding]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

I’ve already done that dozens of times. It’s called inflation theory.

 

[ding]

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

No. It is evidence that someone created it. It is evidence that the reason they created it was to sell it for a profit. It is evidence that it was created in steps. It is evidence that it a certain level of intelligence was required. It is evidence that the purpose it serves for the buyers is to provide light.

Then it does matter what it is evidence of. I'm willing to follow your logic along.

On what basis do you claim it is evidence someone created it?

Right now I am just trying to get you to agree with what every court follows which is that tangible items can be used as evidence. That’s the first step.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

I’ve already done that dozens of times. It’s called inflation theory.

No you haven't. And you still haven't. That is not evidence. You simply say it is. Because your comments are for an audience of one: yourself.

 

[ding]

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

Let's start by discussing what is evidence.

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

As evidence of what?

Doesn’t matter what. It could be any number of things. The point is that anything which is tangible by definition can be used as evidence.

There is a lamp on the table next to me. Is that evidence you are blonde? It is, after all, tangible.

So can I use something you create as evidence?

Evidence of what?

Let’s see. God’s existence, God’s attributes, purpose of the universe, reason for creation, etc.

 

[ding]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

I’ve already done that dozens of times. It’s called inflation theory.

No you haven't. And you still haven't. That is not evidence. You simply say it is. Because your comments are for an audience of one: yourself.

You want to skip straight to dismissing the evidence without considering it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

I’ve already done that dozens of times. It’s called inflation theory.

No you haven't. And you still haven't. That is not evidence. You simply say it is. Because your comments are for an audience of one: yourself.

You want to skip straight to dismissing the evidence without considering it.

Of course, because it can be dismissed as easily as it is asserted, without evidence or argument. That's how you magical thinkers undercut yourselves. Every time.

 

[ding]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

I’ve already done that dozens of times. It’s called inflation theory.

No you haven't. And you still haven't. That is not evidence. You simply say it is. Because your comments are for an audience of one: yourself.

You want to skip straight to dismissing the evidence without considering it.

Of course, because it can be dismissed as easily as it is asserted, without evidence or argument. That's how you magical thinkers undercut yourselves. Every time.

Let’s test that.

I say the evidence shows that God is good. Prove the evidence of what was created isn’t good.

 

[ding]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

I’ve already done that dozens of times. It’s called inflation theory.

No you haven't. And you still haven't. That is not evidence. You simply say it is. Because your comments are for an audience of one: yourself.

You want to skip straight to dismissing the evidence without considering it.

Of course, because it can be dismissed as easily as it is asserted, without evidence or argument. That's how you magical thinkers undercut yourselves. Every time.

I say the evidence tells us that God is supremely intelligent.

Prove the evidence of what was created doesn’t prove God is supremely intelligent.

 

[ding]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

I’ve already done that dozens of times. It’s called inflation theory.

No you haven't. And you still haven't. That is not evidence. You simply say it is. Because your comments are for an audience of one: yourself.

You want to skip straight to dismissing the evidence without considering it.

Of course, because it can be dismissed as easily as it is asserted, without evidence or argument. That's how you magical thinkers undercut yourselves. Every time.

I say the evidence tells us that the purpose of creation is to produce intelligence.

Prove that the evidence doesn’t prove that the purpose of the universe is to create intelligence.

 

[ding]

If you created something could I use what you created as evidence even if I didn't know who created it?

No. No, you couldn't. You would need to present evidence it was created. Pointing at something and insisting it was created is not evidence that it was.

Ding, you always try this goofy parlor trick, grifted right from a creationist blog. It's not aging well.

I’ve already done that dozens of times. It’s called inflation theory.

No you haven't. And you still haven't. That is not evidence. You simply say it is. Because your comments are for an audience of one: yourself.

You want to skip straight to dismissing the evidence without considering it.

Of course, because it can be dismissed as easily as it is asserted, without evidence or argument. That's how you magical thinkers undercut yourselves. Every time.

I say the evidence tells us that the universe was created from nothing.

Prove the evidence doesn’t prove that the universe was created from nothing.

 

[ding]

I’ll stop there for now.

 

[ding]

The evidence clearly shows that existence, aka space and time, aka the universe had a beginning.

The question is what came before it and was it caused. Was it intentional? All valid questions. No magic involved at this point.

 

[ding]

Is there something which is capable of existing outside of space and time that is conscious and capable of creating the material world?

That’s really the heart of the debate.