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

[PK1]

Huh??
In epistemology, it's the opposite.
If you make a (one) claim, it's up to you to prove it.

I have proven that evidence exists I have not attempted to prove that God exists.

What evidence? You have not proven anything.
The teleological argument is primitive in today's intellectual world of modern philosophy & science.

My argument is so far over your head that is a dot to you.

What "argument"? LOL.
Not only do you not understand what evidence is, but you have no idea what a logical argument is.
If you have an argument based on rational evidence ...
where is it?????

Please do tell me what you believe evidence is then,

So, you cannot make a logical argument with evidence, i see.

 

[ding]

I have proven that evidence exists I have not attempted to prove that God exists.

What evidence? You have not proven anything.
The teleological argument is primitive in today's intellectual world of modern philosophy & science.

My argument is so far over your head that is a dot to you.

What "argument"? LOL.
Not only do you not understand what evidence is, but you have no idea what a logical argument is.
If you have an argument based on rational evidence ...
where is it?????

Please do tell me what you believe evidence is then,

So, you cannot make a logical argument with evidence, i see.

You don't even know what evidence is, brother. What exactly do you believe evidence is, brother? Elevate your game.

 

[Mudda]

Reason and experience tell us that dingbat doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that dingbat doesn't know what he's talking about.

And yet your own actions tell us that you condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.

 

[PK1]

What evidence? You have not proven anything.
The teleological argument is primitive in today's intellectual world of modern philosophy & science.

My argument is so far over your head that is a dot to you.

What "argument"? LOL.
Not only do you not understand what evidence is, but you have no idea what a logical argument is.
If you have an argument based on rational evidence ...
where is it?????

Please do tell me what you believe evidence is then,

So, you cannot make a logical argument with evidence, i see.

You don't even know what evidence is, brother. What exactly do you believe evidence is, brother? Elevate your game.

Another diversion?
You made the claim:
there is Evidence for a Creator

It's up to you to supply the "evidence".
Put up or look like a fool.

 

[ding]

My argument is so far over your head that is a dot to you.

What "argument"? LOL.
Not only do you not understand what evidence is, but you have no idea what a logical argument is.
If you have an argument based on rational evidence ...
where is it?????

Please do tell me what you believe evidence is then,

So, you cannot make a logical argument with evidence, i see.

You don't even know what evidence is, brother. What exactly do you believe evidence is, brother? Elevate your game.

Another diversion?
You made the claim:
there is Evidence for a Creator

It's up to you to supply the "evidence".
Put up or look like a fool.

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

 

[Mudda]

Reason and experience tell us that dingbat doesn't know what he's talking about.

And yet your own actions tell us that you condemn respect for anyone who believes in God.

At least you don't dispute what I said, good for you.

 

[PK1]

What "argument"? LOL.
Not only do you not understand what evidence is, but you have no idea what a logical argument is.
If you have an argument based on rational evidence ...
where is it?????

Please do tell me what you believe evidence is then,

So, you cannot make a logical argument with evidence, i see.

You don't even know what evidence is, brother. What exactly do you believe evidence is, brother? Elevate your game.

Another diversion?
You made the claim:
there is Evidence for a Creator

It's up to you to supply the "evidence".
Put up or look like a fool.

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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.

 

[ding]

Please do tell me what you believe evidence is then,

So, you cannot make a logical argument with evidence, i see.

You don't even know what evidence is, brother. What exactly do you believe evidence is, brother? Elevate your game.

Another diversion?
You made the claim:
there is Evidence for a Creator

It's up to you to supply the "evidence".
Put up or look like a fool.

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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 *****. 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?

 

[PK1]

So, you cannot make a logical argument with evidence, i see.

You don't even know what evidence is, brother. What exactly do you believe evidence is, brother? Elevate your game.

Another diversion?
You made the claim:
there is Evidence for a Creator

It's up to you to supply the "evidence".
Put up or look like a fool.

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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 *****. 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.

 

[ding]

You don't even know what evidence is, brother. What exactly do you believe evidence is, brother? Elevate your game.

Another diversion?
You made the claim:
there is Evidence for a Creator

It's up to you to supply the "evidence".
Put up or look like a fool.

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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 *****. 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?

 

[PK1]

Another diversion?
You made the claim:
there is Evidence for a Creator

It's up to you to supply the "evidence".
Put up or look like a fool.

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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 *****. 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.

 

[Czernobog]

Another diversion?
You made the claim:
there is Evidence for a Creator

It's up to you to supply the "evidence".
Put up or look like a fool.

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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 *****. 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?

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

 

[ding]

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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 *****. 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?

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

The big bang theory.

 

[ding]

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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 *****. 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.

So then you won't accept what was created as evidence to prove there was a creator?

 

[ding]

Maybe, if you have a scientific mind.

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

 

[ding]

Yes. I did. That evidence is what He created. Your problem is that you don't accept tangible items as evidence.

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 *****. 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?

 

[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 *****. 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.

So then you won't accept what was created as evidence to prove there was a creator?

I don't know; just like you.
However, i admit i don't know; i'm an honest agnostic, or did you forget already.

 

[Czernobog]

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 *****. 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?

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.

 

[ding]

Don't give me your mumbo jumbo bullshit crap and stop being a *****. 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?

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.