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

[ding]

Right. So each of us are the judge and jury. We have to weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves. We can both look at the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions, but we know from our experiences and our own reasoning that what is created can be used as evidence to learn something about the creator who made it. So when people say that someone who believes in God has no evidence, that isn't really correct because reason and experience tells us that there is evidence. Its just that some people don't accept it while others do.

You have been a great sport. I appreciate your honesty. Do you have any questions for me?

And we're back to your irrational leap of logic. You can presume BULLDOG's motorised cart was a created thing, because you have the experiential knowledge of motorised vehicles being built, so there is a logical reason to believe that the cart in question was built. From that logical position, you can infer a builder, and one can, of course, begin to explore, from the evidence of the creation, qualities about the creator.

Now, please demonstrate for us your experiential knowledge of a Sun being created. Where were you, and under what circumstance, were you present when a Sun was created, in order to lead you to the certainty that our Sun was created? See? This was why I was not willing to play your silly game. I knew where you were going, and where you were going requires me, or in this case BULLDOG, to concede that just as he "built" the motorised cart, that the Sun was also "built". You have no evidence of that presumption.

I thought you left.

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

"Security of belief" is just another way of saying preconceived notion for which I am seeking confirmation. You're right. I don't. I don't need "belief". I need evidence. With evidence comes certainty. Belief requires the suspension of intellect.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. It was obvious by your failure to respond to questions that dealt with your own personal experiences.

 

[ding]

Right. So each of us are the judge and jury. We have to weigh the evidence and decide for ourselves. We can both look at the exact same evidence and come to different conclusions, but we know from our experiences and our own reasoning that what is created can be used as evidence to learn something about the creator who made it. So when people say that someone who believes in God has no evidence, that isn't really correct because reason and experience tells us that there is evidence. Its just that some people don't accept it while others do.

You have been a great sport. I appreciate your honesty. Do you have any questions for me?

And we're back to your irrational leap of logic. You can presume BULLDOG's motorised cart was a created thing, because you have the experiential knowledge of motorised vehicles being built, so there is a logical reason to believe that the cart in question was built. From that logical position, you can infer a builder, and one can, of course, begin to explore, from the evidence of the creation, qualities about the creator.

Now, please demonstrate for us your experiential knowledge of a Sun being created. Where were you, and under what circumstance, were you present when a Sun was created, in order to lead you to the certainty that our Sun was created? See? This was why I was not willing to play your silly game. I knew where you were going, and where you were going requires me, or in this case BULLDOG, to concede that just as he "built" the motorised cart, that the Sun was also "built". You have no evidence of that presumption.

I thought you left.

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

 

[Czernobog]

And we're back to your irrational leap of logic. You can presume BULLDOG's motorised cart was a created thing, because you have the experiential knowledge of motorised vehicles being built, so there is a logical reason to believe that the cart in question was built. From that logical position, you can infer a builder, and one can, of course, begin to explore, from the evidence of the creation, qualities about the creator.

Now, please demonstrate for us your experiential knowledge of a Sun being created. Where were you, and under what circumstance, were you present when a Sun was created, in order to lead you to the certainty that our Sun was created? See? This was why I was not willing to play your silly game. I knew where you were going, and where you were going requires me, or in this case BULLDOG, to concede that just as he "built" the motorised cart, that the Sun was also "built". You have no evidence of that presumption.

I thought you left.

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

"Security of belief" is just another way of saying preconceived notion for which I am seeking confirmation. You're right. I don't. I don't need "belief". I need evidence. With evidence comes certainty. Belief requires the suspension of intellect.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. It was obvious by your failure to respond to questions that dealt with your own personal experiences.

Bullshit. The failure was not my refusal to answer your inane question, it was in your attempt to equate a human endeavour with cosmic events. I demonstrated your failure with your own use of the motorised cart that you tried to equate to "creation" of the universe.

 

[ding]

I thought you left.

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

"Security of belief" is just another way of saying preconceived notion for which I am seeking confirmation. You're right. I don't. I don't need "belief". I need evidence. With evidence comes certainty. Belief requires the suspension of intellect.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. It was obvious by your failure to respond to questions that dealt with your own personal experiences.

Bullshit. The failure was not my refusal to answer your inane question, it was in your attempt to equate a human endeavour with cosmic events. I demonstrated your failure with your own use of the motorised cart that you tried to equate to "creation" of the universe.

We disagree.

 

[Czernobog]

And we're back to your irrational leap of logic. You can presume BULLDOG's motorised cart was a created thing, because you have the experiential knowledge of motorised vehicles being built, so there is a logical reason to believe that the cart in question was built. From that logical position, you can infer a builder, and one can, of course, begin to explore, from the evidence of the creation, qualities about the creator.

Now, please demonstrate for us your experiential knowledge of a Sun being created. Where were you, and under what circumstance, were you present when a Sun was created, in order to lead you to the certainty that our Sun was created? See? This was why I was not willing to play your silly game. I knew where you were going, and where you were going requires me, or in this case BULLDOG, to concede that just as he "built" the motorised cart, that the Sun was also "built". You have no evidence of that presumption.

I thought you left.

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

 

[Czernobog]

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

"Security of belief" is just another way of saying preconceived notion for which I am seeking confirmation. You're right. I don't. I don't need "belief". I need evidence. With evidence comes certainty. Belief requires the suspension of intellect.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. It was obvious by your failure to respond to questions that dealt with your own personal experiences.

Bullshit. The failure was not my refusal to answer your inane question, it was in your attempt to equate a human endeavour with cosmic events. I demonstrated your failure with your own use of the motorised cart that you tried to equate to "creation" of the universe.

We disagree.

You can use the motorised cart to get information on the character of Bulldog, correct?

 

[BULLDOG]

And we're back to your irrational leap of logic. You can presume BULLDOG's motorised cart was a created thing, because you have the experiential knowledge of motorised vehicles being built, so there is a logical reason to believe that the cart in question was built. From that logical position, you can infer a builder, and one can, of course, begin to explore, from the evidence of the creation, qualities about the creator.

Now, please demonstrate for us your experiential knowledge of a Sun being created. Where were you, and under what circumstance, were you present when a Sun was created, in order to lead you to the certainty that our Sun was created? See? This was why I was not willing to play your silly game. I knew where you were going, and where you were going requires me, or in this case BULLDOG, to concede that just as he "built" the motorised cart, that the Sun was also "built". You have no evidence of that presumption.

I thought you left.

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

You can consider anything evidence. Whether that evidence is credible, or proves the point is what counts. Lawyers often present totally useless and misleading evidence as a distraction. Again, believe what you want, If you require nothing more than a gut feeling that something matches what you were told as a child, good for you. You are relieved of the need to know your beliefs are true. Others require something more before throwing the pearls of their most sacred beliefs before the swine of unsubstantiated, unreasonable dogma.

 

[ding]

I thought you left.

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

 

[Czernobog]

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

No, it is you who are trying to confirm your bias. You have a box of stuff. You assume that box of stuff is evidence of a creator. Why? Why do you make that assumption? I repeat my question: You can infer things about the nature of Bulldog, based on the cart that he built, correct?

 

[ding]

I thought you left.

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

You can consider anything evidence. Whether that evidence is credible, or proves the point is what counts. Lawyers often present totally useless and misleading evidence as a distraction. Again, believe what you want, If you require nothing more than a gut feeling that something matches what you were told as a child, good for you. You are relieved of the need to know your beliefs are true. Others require something more before throwing the pearls of their most sacred beliefs before the swine of unsubstantiated, unreasonable dogma.

Sure, how is that any different than what I wrote? The only difference is that when I wrote it I did not need to disparage your position.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nope, and you still have not achieved your stated goal.

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

 

[ding]

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

No, it is you who are trying to confirm your bias. You have a box of stuff. You assume that box of stuff is evidence of a creator. Why? Why do you make that assumption? I repeat my question: You can infer things about the nature of Bulldog, based on the cart that he built, correct?

There is really nothing more I need to add or want to add.

 

[ding]

Sure I did, just not with you. You don't have the security of belief to have an honest discussion on the subject like Bulldog did.

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

 

[ding]

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

 

[BULLDOG]

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Certainly. Here is a quote from your previous post.

In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator.

Proceed with your determination.

 

[Syriusly]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Who is 'us'- is that your royal 'we'- are you the queen?

 

[Czernobog]

Just an afterthought, but you might want to know that the story about the cart was just made up on the spot, and anything you might have considered evidence from your evaluation of what you knew about it would be nothing but pure conjecture. I suspect much of what you consider to be evidence of a creator has been derived with the same analytical effort.

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

No, it is you who are trying to confirm your bias. You have a box of stuff. You assume that box of stuff is evidence of a creator. Why? Why do you make that assumption? I repeat my question: You can infer things about the nature of Bulldog, based on the cart that he built, correct?

There is really nothing more I need to add or want to add.

But I'm the one being dishonest, and afraid to have their bias exposed. LOL.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Except the entire purpose of your OP was that you can prove to others the existence of a Creator. Now, you acknowledge that you can't.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[PK1]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

You have a very LOW BAR for "evidence", and likely coupled with extreme ignorance about current scientific knowledge & methods used for interpretation & theorization.
How is your "reason & experience" significantly different from god-inclined philosophers from 2,000 years ago, when the sun revolved around ourselves?