Science isn’t always the answer.

[sealybobo]

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

According to you, the Bible is a myth and God is a fairy tale. You, too, are without excuse. Evidence of our Creator is everywhere. You being a thinking creature with a, hopefully, functioning conscience should tell you that. But, instead, you're bent on spending your time trying feverishly to prove God doesn't exist. He's the one you'll need to answer to -- not me. I just call it like I see it.

Where is "everywhere", you claim exhibits evidence for your gods? I was hoping you could offer something more than "everywhere''. I see the natural world everywhere I look and see no indications of supernaturalism. My conscience tells me nothing of gods.

I will note however, that culturally, people's conscience tells them of the gods which are predominant in those respective cultures. A Hindu's conscience tells him /her of gods very different from your gods.

As to the existence of your gods, you may have missed it but I spend no time trying to disprove people's gods. I react to unfounded claims by religionists who insist their gods are extant and evidence for those gods is "everywhere".

I have no reason to accept I will have to answer to your gods. That kind of threat is rather pointless unless you are some self styled Mafioso-type enforcer on behalf of the gods.

In other words they can't scare us into believing. We could fake it and try to play it safe but I believe a god would know we don't really believe.

 

[forkup]

Intelligence is literally programmed into the fabric of existence.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

No, you haven't, you have given me a logical construct on the basis of a mathematical model that is one of several available. That is a HYPOTHESIS, show me one time in the history of the scientific method when the hypothesis alone counted as evidence? It's just as much circular reasoning than those who claim the proof for the Bible can be found in the Bible.

Actually I have shown the only way the universe could have began was to be created from nothing. Even the link you provided is based upon a universe being created from nothing.

A singularity is not nothing. Neither is a universe that contracted those are both something.

 

[sealybobo]

I will continue to believe God made Adam and Eve. Nothing in science contradicts that belief. And even somehow science proves man descended from an ape like creature, which has not provided compelling evidence for yet I will still believe that because those two things are NOT mutually exclusive to one another.

Even though we’ve explained in great detail why your belief is wrong? Luckily old dumb Americans like you die every day and are replaced with people who haven’t been brainwashed by ignorant parents who were brainwashed by ignorant parents

LOL my parents were not religious at all nor my Grandparents so much for your IGNORANCE.

So you don’t even have the excuse that your parents brainwashed you from early on? That makes you even more guilty of willful ignorance.

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

Retard the majority of the planet believes in God.

Oh, well, that means what?

Perhaps you should go on a gee-had and convert those who don't believe in your gods.

My god doesn't require that. Perhaps you have heard of the New Testament? More people in this world believe in a higher being then don't and 70 percent of the USA does as well.

Perhaps you have heard of a herd mentality? Lots of people believe Islam corrected your corrupted religion. Lots of people believe it so it must be true.

Thanks, lots.

One leads to killing, maiming, and unhappiness.
The other leads to a peace that passes all understanding.

People aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

The history of your religion sure depicts a lot of killing, maiming, and unhappiness. Those folks persecuted, maimed, and killed in the most inventive of ways by your religious compatriots may disagree about ''the peace that passes all understanding'' meme.

You're just naive and uneducated to blame mankind's failures and evil acts on Christians. Mainly because not all those who profess to be Christians are true believers. That has been the case from the beginning. That would be the same as my blaming you for every act committed against the black slaves or against the American indians. Pretty juvenile, actually.

Actually, Christian America is responsible for what we did to slaves and indians.

You guys claim we are/were always a Christian nation but then you don't want to blame Christianity for what we did to slaves and indians?

But you are quick to blame Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler on atheism? Keep in mind Germany was a Christian nation when they tried to exterminate all the Jews. And it wasn't until the last decade or so that Christian Americans started befriending Jews. We treated them like shit too because they killed our messiah. Today we have a truce because we have a mutual enemy, another religion, Muslims. So we say the USA is a Christian Jewdao nation. Yea, sure it is. So you forgive the Jews for not only killing Jesus but also for continuing to deny that he is the messiah? It bothers you that us atheists say it but you're ok with Jews saying it? Interesting.

 

[sealybobo]

I will continue to believe God made Adam and Eve. Nothing in science contradicts that belief. And even somehow science proves man descended from an ape like creature, which has not provided compelling evidence for yet I will still believe that because those two things are NOT mutually exclusive to one another.

Even though we’ve explained in great detail why your belief is wrong? Luckily old dumb Americans like you die every day and are replaced with people who haven’t been brainwashed by ignorant parents who were brainwashed by ignorant parents

LOL my parents were not religious at all nor my Grandparents so much for your IGNORANCE.

So you don’t even have the excuse that your parents brainwashed you from early on? That makes you even more guilty of willful ignorance.

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

Retard the majority of the planet believes in God.

Oh, well, that means what?

Perhaps you should go on a gee-had and convert those who don't believe in your gods.

My god doesn't require that. Perhaps you have heard of the New Testament? More people in this world believe in a higher being then don't and 70 percent of the USA does as well.

Perhaps you have heard of a herd mentality? Lots of people believe Islam corrected your corrupted religion. Lots of people believe it so it must be true.

Thanks, lots.

One leads to killing, maiming, and unhappiness.
The other leads to a peace that passes all understanding.

People aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

The history of your religion sure depicts a lot of killing, maiming, and unhappiness. Those folks persecuted, maimed, and killed in the most inventive of ways by your religious compatriots may disagree about ''the peace that passes all understanding'' meme.

You're just naive and uneducated to blame mankind's failures and evil acts on Christians. Mainly because not all those who profess to be Christians are true believers. That has been the case from the beginning. That would be the same as my blaming you for every act committed against the black slaves or against the American indians. Pretty juvenile, actually.

I don’t hold mankind’s failures on acts of Christians, I hold Christians accountable for the failures of Christians. Aside from whatever chosen interpretation one wishes to take away from selected verses, we have only to look at the examples set by Christians in order to come to conclusions about Christianity. The fact is, the only external example of Christianity we have is Christians. If one is going to come to conclusions about such matters as forced conversions, enslavement of people, the revulsion of knowledge by the ruling class (the Dark Ages), the Christian world provides those examples.

You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian mob to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden

Zeus bless you Hollie. I really love you.

 

[sealybobo]

The Bible actually carries a lot of clout and has a lot of support.

Outside the cult? No. For example, evolution is an accepted fact, and your creation myth would get you laughed out of any educated company anywhere on the planet.

Outside the cult of atheism, you non-Christians would be prayed for -- not laughed at.

That alone should tell you that your cult is out of touch with all those who know that God exists. You remain lost. sigh

My dad so badly wants to see my dead mom again one day that he insists there must be an afterlife. Not for people who weren't really in love but for people like them. Must be he says.

Don't you see what he is doing is nothing more than wishful thinking? He has no logical arguments. And if he could find logical arguments in a holy book you can be sure he would show me these arguments. But he doesn't. All he says is there must be and he hopes there is.

We get why you guys believe. It has nothing to do with knowing anything.

So yes we are out of touch with people who insist that when they die, they become gods themselves. Their spirit moves to a realm where they see all their love ones. They never get sick. Never sad, mad, jealous etc... For all eternity. So basically most humans BELIEVE that they are gods themselves. Based on no evidence. That's called wishful thinking.

Remember, we are only 3 or 4 steps out of the cave. Very primative. And religions still have a stranglehold on the masses. Religion is one of the way "they" control us. They being the rich. It's a big business. A racket.

 

[sealybobo]

I will continue to believe God made Adam and Eve. Nothing in science contradicts that belief. And even somehow science proves man descended from an ape like creature, which has not provided compelling evidence for yet I will still believe that because those two things are NOT mutually exclusive to one another.

Even though we’ve explained in great detail why your belief is wrong? Luckily old dumb Americans like you die every day and are replaced with people who haven’t been brainwashed by ignorant parents who were brainwashed by ignorant parents

LOL my parents were not religious at all nor my Grandparents so much for your IGNORANCE.

So you don’t even have the excuse that your parents brainwashed you from early on? That makes you even more guilty of willful ignorance.

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

Retard the majority of the planet believes in God.

Oh, well, that means what?

Perhaps you should go on a gee-had and convert those who don't believe in your gods.

My god doesn't require that. Perhaps you have heard of the New Testament? More people in this world believe in a higher being then don't and 70 percent of the USA does as well.

Perhaps you have heard of a herd mentality? Lots of people believe Islam corrected your corrupted religion. Lots of people believe it so it must be true.

Thanks, lots.

One leads to killing, maiming, and unhappiness.
The other leads to a peace that passes all understanding.

People aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

The history of your religion sure depicts a lot of killing, maiming, and unhappiness. Those folks persecuted, maimed, and killed in the most inventive of ways by your religious compatriots may disagree about ''the peace that passes all understanding'' meme.

You're just naive and uneducated to blame mankind's failures and evil acts on Christians. Mainly because not all those who profess to be Christians are true believers. That has been the case from the beginning. That would be the same as my blaming you for every act committed against the black slaves or against the American indians. Pretty juvenile, actually.

I don’t hold mankind’s failures on acts of Christians, I hold Christians accountable for the failures of Christians. Aside from whatever chosen interpretation one wishes to take away from selected verses, we have only to look at the examples set by Christians in order to come to conclusions about Christianity. The fact is, the only external example of Christianity we have is Christians. If one is going to come to conclusions about such matters as forced conversions, enslavement of people, the revulsion of knowledge by the ruling class (the Dark Ages), the Christian world provides those examples.

You can't be that naive, Holly. Hitler called himself a Christian. He could call himself a woman in this day and age. That wouldn't make him a woman. This stuff is basic.

You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian mob to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden

So, you think all those good people who are non-Christians haven't hurt other people, or done things they are ashamed of?
Even Christians hurt other people, and do things they are ashamed of.

Those who deny that are simply lying to themselves.

Seriously, Holly, you are very naive and lack discernment.

Case in point. Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. You should be able to tell that just by looking around today. People have done lots of things in the name of their religion, but that doesn't mean God is anywhere near them.

I wasn't aware that you were assigned as the ultimate authority on who is, and who is not a real Christian. Such a weighty burden you bear.
"I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publicly and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what Christians have done to humanity, he sure was.

Theists define outside of theism any group that engages in behavior later deemed to be considered anti-thetical to the theism in question. For instance, Hitler was not banished from the Catholic Church (the Vatican) at all during his reign. Only AFTER he was vanquished and only after the world expressed outrage at his acts of brutality, and only AFTER the deaths of over 20 million people in WW2 did the theists start to argue that "Hitler wasn't religious".

Yes, Hitler certainly was. And his totalitarian views and hatreds grew from his religious upbringing.


Why not pay attention to what I have written out? I never claimed that the non-religious never hurt other people. Hey, it's Christians in these threads who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. Materialists have no such doctrine to adhere to.

Who's the hypocrite in this situation:

The person who says there is no god but then behaves with tolerance and respect simply because it's in the human interest to do so

or

The person who claims they have a duty to emulate a higher being and follow higher rules, and then doesn't?

My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many Christians, then it follows adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more violent, then of what good is it (a good example is Christianity)?

Morals and ethics are claimed by religionists here to be the result of the inerrancy of Christianity (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise. It seems that there is an undercurrent of how great those who believe in god and Jesus are.

But you know what? I see just the opposite on this board. A lot of very religious individuals are the most reactive, and want to see the heads roll of the kuffar roll; they ache to see blood spilled. They take glee in the idea there is going to be conflict, that people are about to die in horrible ways, and this is all good. I would say it's tragic in the extreme.

My expectations? Either your religions are the solution or they are the problem. Gott Mit Uns, Guess what? You are the problem.


Don't be so naïve to think that you are the final arbiter of "real Christians" vs. the "not real christians". Take responsibility for what your ideology has wrought. It creates divisions where there are none.

Nailed it!!!

Just some thoughts.

1. Hitler may not have believed in god. But what he did was use god to manipulate the German people. Those damn Jews killed Jesus right? Sometimes I wonder if the Gay Cardinals in the Vatican believe in God or if they know it's a racket.

2. Christians believe they get a free pass on being bad because they believe. Christianity made it real easy to become a member and to be forgiven. Even Jeffrey Dahmer might be in prison if he was truly sorry in the final hour.

3. I agree these theists love violence. They don't care when black Americans are killed by cops. They don't care about how many people were killed in Iraq when GW lied us into that war. And they don't care if people needlessly die of corona if it means they will have to wait a couple more weeks to go back to work. They only care as long as they have money in their wallets. And I guess it doesn't matter if people die. The ones who are christians will go to heaven and the ones that aren't, well? **** em.

I will continue to believe God made Adam and Eve. Nothing in science contradicts that belief. And even somehow science proves man descended from an ape like creature, which has not provided compelling evidence for yet I will still believe that because those two things are NOT mutually exclusive to one another.

Even though we’ve explained in great detail why your belief is wrong? Luckily old dumb Americans like you die every day and are replaced with people who haven’t been brainwashed by ignorant parents who were brainwashed by ignorant parents

LOL my parents were not religious at all nor my Grandparents so much for your IGNORANCE.

So you don’t even have the excuse that your parents brainwashed you from early on? That makes you even more guilty of willful ignorance.

Actually, you're the one that needs an excuse. You deny God. That is inexcusable.

Ah. So the majority of the planet that either believes in no gods of gods different from your gods are inexcusable?

That reads like an introduction to cult literature.

Retard the majority of the planet believes in God.

Oh, well, that means what?

Perhaps you should go on a gee-had and convert those who don't believe in your gods.

My god doesn't require that. Perhaps you have heard of the New Testament? More people in this world believe in a higher being then don't and 70 percent of the USA does as well.

Perhaps you have heard of a herd mentality? Lots of people believe Islam corrected your corrupted religion. Lots of people believe it so it must be true.

Thanks, lots.

One leads to killing, maiming, and unhappiness.
The other leads to a peace that passes all understanding.

People aren't as stupid as you seem to think.

The history of your religion sure depicts a lot of killing, maiming, and unhappiness. Those folks persecuted, maimed, and killed in the most inventive of ways by your religious compatriots may disagree about ''the peace that passes all understanding'' meme.

You're just naive and uneducated to blame mankind's failures and evil acts on Christians. Mainly because not all those who profess to be Christians are true believers. That has been the case from the beginning. That would be the same as my blaming you for every act committed against the black slaves or against the American indians. Pretty juvenile, actually.

I don’t hold mankind’s failures on acts of Christians, I hold Christians accountable for the failures of Christians. Aside from whatever chosen interpretation one wishes to take away from selected verses, we have only to look at the examples set by Christians in order to come to conclusions about Christianity. The fact is, the only external example of Christianity we have is Christians. If one is going to come to conclusions about such matters as forced conversions, enslavement of people, the revulsion of knowledge by the ruling class (the Dark Ages), the Christian world provides those examples.

You can't be that naive, Holly. Hitler called himself a Christian. He could call himself a woman in this day and age. That wouldn't make him a woman. This stuff is basic.

You can be a good person without giving two hoots about Jesus, as billions of non-Christians prove every day. Christians think this world was nothing but barbarians before Jesus-- when in actuality true barbarism sprung up rampantly after Jesus and his devoted fanatics started hacking at anyone who slightly disagreed with them (even the atrocities of the old testament as recounted above pale in comparison to the holocausts, pogrom, wars and genocides that the teachings of Jesus has inspired). You think the Greeks burned old women because they were witches? The greatest library of all time-- the Library at Alexandria --was created by the Greek Ionians-- men who believed in Zeus. It took a Christian mob to destroy their works and literally set us back 2,000 years. For god. Who, according to the bible, hates knowledge so much he made it the one thing forbidden in Eden

So, you think all those good people who are non-Christians haven't hurt other people, or done things they are ashamed of?
Even Christians hurt other people, and do things they are ashamed of.

Those who deny that are simply lying to themselves.

Seriously, Holly, you are very naive and lack discernment.

Case in point. Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. You should be able to tell that just by looking around today. People have done lots of things in the name of their religion, but that doesn't mean God is anywhere near them.

I wasn't aware that you were assigned as the ultimate authority on who is, and who is not a real Christian. Such a weighty burden you bear.
"I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publicly and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what Christians have done to humanity, he sure was.

Theists define outside of theism any group that engages in behavior later deemed to be considered anti-thetical to the theism in question. For instance, Hitler was not banished from the Catholic Church (the Vatican) at all during his reign. Only AFTER he was vanquished and only after the world expressed outrage at his acts of brutality, and only AFTER the deaths of over 20 million people in WW2 did the theists start to argue that "Hitler wasn't religious".

Yes, Hitler certainly was. And his totalitarian views and hatreds grew from his religious upbringing.


Why not pay attention to what I have written out? I never claimed that the non-religious never hurt other people. Hey, it's Christians in these threads who claim that they have morals of a divine nature to adhere to -- it's theism that claims a "better person" comes from a deep faith. Materialists have no such doctrine to adhere to.

Who's the hypocrite in this situation:

The person who says there is no god but then behaves with tolerance and respect simply because it's in the human interest to do so

or

The person who claims they have a duty to emulate a higher being and follow higher rules, and then doesn't?

My expectation is that if religion is so beneficial that it must be forced on all (as is the belief of many Christians, then it follows adherents to it should be better people. If religious beliefs make you less tolerant, more violent, then of what good is it (a good example is Christianity)?

Morals and ethics are claimed by religionists here to be the result of the inerrancy of Christianity (an utterly untrue assertion with reams of evidence against it), which is then touted as the wondrous panacea that solves all the world's ills and makes all those who believe people deserving of eternal paradise. It seems that there is an undercurrent of how great those who believe in god and Jesus are.

But you know what? I see just the opposite on this board. A lot of very religious individuals are the most reactive, and want to see the heads roll of the kuffar roll; they ache to see blood spilled. They take glee in the idea there is going to be conflict, that people are about to die in horrible ways, and this is all good. I would say it's tragic in the extreme.

My expectations? Either your religions are the solution or they are the problem. Gott Mit Uns, Guess what? You are the problem.


Don't be so naïve to think that you are the final arbiter of "real Christians" vs. the "not real christians". Take responsibility for what your ideology has wrought. It creates divisions where there are none.

Just some thoughts.

1. Hitler may not have believed in god. But what he did was use god to manipulate the German people. Those damn Jews killed Jesus right? Sometimes I wonder if the Gay Cardinals in the Vatican believe in God or if they know it's a racket.

2. Christians believe they get a free pass on being bad because they believe. Christianity made it real easy to become a member and to be forgiven. Even Jeffrey Dahmer might be in prison if he was truly sorry in the final hour.

3. I agree these theists love violence. They don't care when black Americans are killed by cops. They don't care about how many people were killed in Iraq when GW lied us into that war. And they don't care if people needlessly die of corona if it means they will have to wait a couple more weeks to go back to work. They only care as long as they have money in their wallets. And I guess it doesn't matter if people die. The ones who are christians will go to heaven and the ones that aren't, well? **** em.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Science isn’t always the answer.
⁜→ ding, et al,

BLUF: Infinity is not as simplistic as a concept as the largest number. Instead, it is the notion that no finite end. And in this regard, both the notions of "science" and the "sum total of existence" have no finite end.

As for "the whole of existence" → it is a set of all there is, both the tangible and intangible → natural and supernatural → that is, in itself, an infinite.

How is it in itself an infinite exactly?

(COMMENT)

The notion of science (study) seeks to make sense of "the whole of existence" (nature). And, of course, the notion of that which falls under the heading of "natural existence" is only representative of one set distinguishable objects, notions, or concepts (a set being a collection of elements) within that which can be explained through the "scientific method." There are several sets of objects, notions, or concepts that are beyond the that which can be resolved through the "scientific method." Two such examples are:

◈ Those objects, notions, or concepts which sound like the realm of science. Example: "String Theory." ​

​

◈ Those objects, notions, or concepts which are supernatural. Example: The notion of a "Deity."​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BreezeWood]

Intelligence is literally programmed into the fabric of existence.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

No, you haven't, you have given me a logical construct on the basis of a mathematical model that is one of several available. That is a HYPOTHESIS, show me one time in the history of the scientific method when the hypothesis alone counted as evidence? It's just as much circular reasoning than those who claim the proof for the Bible can be found in the Bible.

Actually I have shown the only way the universe could have began was to be created from nothing. Even the link you provided is based upon a universe being created from nothing.

A singularity is not nothing. Neither is a universe that contracted those are both something.

You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

.
not sure why you would ascribe intelligence only to yourself, humanity especially the correct interpretation of the top quote.

all beings one way or the other figure out what they want, the end result is whether they are able to make it past their present existence. purity would have a lot to do with such an ability and what species is there on Earth less pure than humanity, non comes to mind.

 

[forkup]

Intelligence is literally programmed into the fabric of existence.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

No, you haven't, you have given me a logical construct on the basis of a mathematical model that is one of several available. That is a HYPOTHESIS, show me one time in the history of the scientific method when the hypothesis alone counted as evidence? It's just as much circular reasoning than those who claim the proof for the Bible can be found in the Bible.

Actually I have shown the only way the universe could have began was to be created from nothing. Even the link you provided is based upon a universe being created from nothing.

A singularity is not nothing. Neither is a universe that contracted those are both something.

You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

.
not sure why you would ascribe intelligence only to yourself, humanity especially the correct interpretation of the top quote.

all beings one way or the other figure out what they want, the end result is whether they are able to make it past their present existence. purity would have a lot to do with such an ability and what species is there on Earth less pure than humanity, non comes to mind.

You are of course right. That's a bad argument because intelligence itself is a pretty subjective term.

 

[ding]

you have picked one, declared it the truth, and then did an entire logical construct on the basis of that in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Did you forget that YOU were the one who asked for evidence for God's existence.

I have literally given you what YOU asked for.

Definition of evidence | Dictionary.com I think it would be helpful for you to look up the word evidence. You have provided no evidence. You have provided a hypothesis.

Maybe this will clarify the difference. Someone is accused of murder and the prosecutor says " I have evidence the accused did it." He subsequently shows the accused had no alibi and was physically capable of committing the murder. He shows nothing more. What do you suppose the chances are he gets convicted?

Same circumstances but now the prosecutor shows a bloody knife with DNA from both the accused and victim on it. Plus a tape putting them in the same room at the time of death. This person will be convicted. What do you suppose the difference is between the 2?

I have looked up the definition of evidence. Anything which is tangible can be used as evidence. Which means that everything which was created is evidence. If you created something I could use that as evidence, right? So why can't I use everything which was created as evidence? In fact, what else do you think one can use to answer the question I posed?

Let me refresh your memory...

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved.

So given that you claim that you are open minded and seek truth, why is it that you have never examined the only evidence you have at your disposal?

I am showing you the bloody knife and you are telling me it's not evidence. It seems you want to skip the examination of evidence and go straight to sentencing.

Define nothing?
The problem you keep on having is that you jump from something came from nothing to it has to be purposeful if it did. That is simply not the case they are other possible hypotheses that don't rely on some undefined spirit. There are other possible hypotheses than "nothing" before the Big bang. Again you created a logical construct predicated on a shaky premise and then just ran with it.

Actually that too was addressed. Maybe you were too busy parsing what I wrote to actually see it.

Let me highlight the relevant parts.

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

So we need to start from that position and examine the evidence we have at our disposal which is creation itself. Specifically, the laws of nature; physical, biological and moral. And how space and time has evolved. And how we perceive God.

If we perceive God to be some magical fairy tale then everything we see will skew to that result. There won't be one single thing that we will agree with or accept. Whereas if we were trying to objectively analyze the evidence for spirit creating the material world we would listen to the whole argument and not look for trivial things to nitpick.

But since this is my argument we will use my perception of God. Which is there no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is not matter and energy like us and God exists outside of our four dimension space time. In fact the premise is that God is no thing. That God is a spirit. A spirit is no thing. Being things we can't possibly relate to being no things. A two dimensional being would have an easier time trying to understand our third dimension than we - a four dimensional being - would in trying to understand a multi-dimensional being outside of our space time. The closest I can come to and later confirm with the physical laws is that God is consciousness. That Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.

So now that a realistic perception of God has been established we need to examine the only evidence at our disposal. It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

I didn't make the claim one cannot know. I made the claim that by what we so far know no convincing evidence for a supreme being creating the cosmos has been given.

You kinda sorta did though.

Maybe you have not been following science but the universe literally popped into existence ~14 billion years ago and was created from nothing.

Says you, but not a single scientist. They will claim that they don't have information enough to come out with a determination.

And then you were proven wrong. Remember?

 

[ding]

The fact that you are trying to argue here on a message board with someone who has only a passing understanding of astronomy and quantum physics strongly suggests that you don't possess evidence strong enough to publish and defend your hypothesis before people who do.

That makes no sense at all. You asked for evidence of God's existence. I provided it. You then proceeded to argue with me about it.

I'm not writing a research paper on the universe popping into existence from nothing. That's already been done. I am linking the universe popping into existence from nothing and evolving beings that know and create to a creator because it makes perfect sense. We know from our own experiences that we are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too. We also know from our own experiences as creators that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same.

 

[ding]

As to space and time. You can not claim space and time didn't exist before and in the next sentence acknowledge that space and time could have existed before the creation of our universe albeit separate.

That is exactly the premise that cosmologists make. Haven't you heard of multiverses? They are eternal into the future but not eternal into the past. If there are other universes out there then each one had its own beginning and is separate from every other multiverse.

 

[ding]

Support this?

The universe is an intelligence creating machine. It's not an accident.

Again a statement. Not you supporting it.

Since we are dealing with a hypothesis. What is intelligence and what makes you believe it's necessarily pre-ordained? Earth is billions of years old. So far we have proof of one highly intelligent species. Out of billions upon billions species on the only planet, we know life exists, one developed intelligence. This species can not be considered especially successful since it has been around for only a few million years on the broadest interpretation of the word human. And from where I'm sitting we are just as likely to get ourselves extinct by nuclear war or by depleting this planet's resources.

What if that's the inevitable outcome of intelligence? You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

You do realize that the reason SETI searches for intelligent life is because they expect to find it, right?

The laws of nature are such that the potential for beings to know and create existed before space and time. It isn't some accident that intelligence arose. Intelligence arose because the laws of nature preordained it would rise.

The inevitable outcome of intelligence can be extrapolated from the evolutionary stages that preceded it. Do you even know what those stages are? Because it's like you have never given this any serious consideration before and yet you are determined to argue from a position of ignorance.

You do realize so far SETI hasn't found any right? Radiowaves originating from Earth have been penetrating space for a century. Meaning that any intelligent life within 50 lightyears would have been able to pick up and respond in the same manner to these radiowaves. Not only that but considering the age of the universe and the fact that there is little theoretical limit on the range of radio waves which is the simplest form of long-distance communication we know, there is no reason to not assume that by now at least some non-random signals would have been picked up if intelligent life really is prevalent in the universe.

Seti is NOT a supporting argument for your position.

Actually they do support my position. They believe as I do that the universe is an intelligence creating machine. That given the right conditions and enough time that intelligent beings will arise.

Why? Because intelligence is written into the fabric of existence. Try reading this and see if you disagree.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

Intelligence is literally programmed into the fabric of existence.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

No, you haven't, you have given me a logical construct on the basis of a mathematical model that is one of several available. That is a HYPOTHESIS, show me one time in the history of the scientific method when the hypothesis alone counted as evidence? It's just as much circular reasoning than those who claim the proof for the Bible can be found in the Bible.

Actually I have shown the only way the universe could have began was to be created from nothing. Even the link you provided is based upon a universe being created from nothing.

A singularity is not nothing. Neither is a universe that contracted those are both something.

You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

.
not sure why you would ascribe intelligence only to yourself, humanity especially the correct interpretation of the top quote.

all beings one way or the other figure out what they want, the end result is whether they are able to make it past their present existence. purity would have a lot to do with such an ability and what species is there on Earth less pure than humanity, non comes to mind.

You are of course right. That's a bad argument because intelligence itself is a pretty subjective term.

When I use that phrase I mean to say beings that know and create such as ourselves.

 

[ding]

Intelligence is literally programmed into the fabric of existence.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

No, you haven't, you have given me a logical construct on the basis of a mathematical model that is one of several available. That is a HYPOTHESIS, show me one time in the history of the scientific method when the hypothesis alone counted as evidence? It's just as much circular reasoning than those who claim the proof for the Bible can be found in the Bible.

Actually I have shown the only way the universe could have began was to be created from nothing. Even the link you provided is based upon a universe being created from nothing.

A singularity is not nothing. Neither is a universe that contracted those are both something.

The laws of nature do not exist or stop just for us. Given enough time and the right conditions why would you expect beings that know and create wouldn't arise?

I don't believe you know what a singularity is in the context of the universe having a beginning. What do you suppose cosmologists mean when they use the term singularity?

Are you arguing that the universe has existed forever? Because that has been put to rest long ago. Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that space and time did have a beginning. If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. For every matter to energy or energy to matter exchange there is a loss of usable energy. So while the total energy of the universe does not decrease, the usable energy of the universe does decrease. If it is a periodic or cyclical universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. Since we do not see thermal equilibrium (good thing too because there would be no life) we know that the universe did have a beginning.

 

[forkup]

Support this?

The universe is an intelligence creating machine. It's not an accident.

Again a statement. Not you supporting it.

Since we are dealing with a hypothesis. What is intelligence and what makes you believe it's necessarily pre-ordained? Earth is billions of years old. So far we have proof of one highly intelligent species. Out of billions upon billions species on the only planet, we know life exists, one developed intelligence. This species can not be considered especially successful since it has been around for only a few million years on the broadest interpretation of the word human. And from where I'm sitting we are just as likely to get ourselves extinct by nuclear war or by depleting this planet's resources.

What if that's the inevitable outcome of intelligence? You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

You do realize that the reason SETI searches for intelligent life is because they expect to find it, right?

The laws of nature are such that the potential for beings to know and create existed before space and time. It isn't some accident that intelligence arose. Intelligence arose because the laws of nature preordained it would rise.

The inevitable outcome of intelligence can be extrapolated from the evolutionary stages that preceded it. Do you even know what those stages are? Because it's like you have never given this any serious consideration before and yet you are determined to argue from a position of ignorance.

You do realize so far SETI hasn't found any right? Radiowaves originating from Earth have been penetrating space for a century. Meaning that any intelligent life within 50 lightyears would have been able to pick up and respond in the same manner to these radiowaves. Not only that but considering the age of the universe and the fact that there is little theoretical limit on the range of radio waves which is the simplest form of long-distance communication we know, there is no reason to not assume that by now at least some non-random signals would have been picked up if intelligent life really is prevalent in the universe.

Seti is NOT a supporting argument for your position.

Actually they do support my position. They believe as I do that the universe is an intelligence creating machine. That given the right conditions and enough time that intelligent beings will arise.

Why? Because intelligence is written into the fabric of existence. Try reading this and see if you disagree.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

This is actually the heart of our disagreement. See if you understand this.

The people at SETI have a hypothesis. Intelligent life exists outside Earth. (something I have no problem accepting as a premise).They have devised a test. Scan space for non-random signals. Now unless and until they find those signals. Their hypothesis remains unproven and so unsupported. Exactly zero of them will publish that intelligent life exists outside Earth. They don't care how much they believe their hypothesis to be valid because BELIEF does not count as evidence.

You on the other hand have a hypothesis. And somehow claim that counts as evidence simply because it sounds logical to you.

 

[BreezeWood]

Intelligence is literally programmed into the fabric of existence.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

Want to see all the things we discover in the universe that don't make sense? I could have gone further, but suffice to say that you rely heavily on logical fallacies in this point the main one being again, begging the question. (asserting stuff without actually supporting it) and just in general causal fallacies.

How else do you propose we answer the question was the universe created by a creator if not by studying what was created.

And if the universe was created by a creator for a specific purpose and reason, wouldn't you expect to find that evidence in what was created?

You are the one suggesting that you have evidence to support your assertion, how you find that evidence is on you is it not? I'm simply suggesting that you still haven't provided it.

When people in this thread asked me to provide evidence for evolution I did, not in the form of a hypothesis but in the form of articles presented by scientists who published and were peer-reviewed. I didn't rely on a fallacious logical construct that as far as I could tell relies on a hypothesis based on a mathematical model. ( Just saying it should tell you how you are stretching.)

You want me to say, a supreme being is possible? Fine I will. But so far you have not given me any reason to think it is what actually happened.

I don't want anything from you. You were the one who asked for evidence. I have given you what you asked for.

No, you haven't, you have given me a logical construct on the basis of a mathematical model that is one of several available. That is a HYPOTHESIS, show me one time in the history of the scientific method when the hypothesis alone counted as evidence? It's just as much circular reasoning than those who claim the proof for the Bible can be found in the Bible.

Actually I have shown the only way the universe could have began was to be created from nothing. Even the link you provided is based upon a universe being created from nothing.

A singularity is not nothing. Neither is a universe that contracted those are both something.

You seem to present intelligence as the end result, what if intelligence is a very bad evolutionary adaptation because of the ability to manipulate the environment inevitable causes that environment to be destroyed? Seems to me this is just as likely a hypothesis as yours.

Again says you. So far we know of one intelligent species in the universe... US. Ascribing intelligence to anything else is simply not supported.

.
not sure why you would ascribe intelligence only to yourself, humanity especially the correct interpretation of the top quote.

all beings one way or the other figure out what they want, the end result is whether they are able to make it past their present existence. purity would have a lot to do with such an ability and what species is there on Earth less pure than humanity, non comes to mind.

You are of course right. That's a bad argument because intelligence itself is a pretty subjective term.

When I use that phrase I mean to say beings that know and create such as ourselves.

When I use that phrase I mean to say beings that know and create such as ourselves.

.
sortof hedged there with that response ...

all physiological beings know and create - just why desert thumpers revel at being somehow special or important and ingrained in their written documents is an inexcusable error. from the very beginning of their false religions.

 

[barn sour]

Case in point. Not all who call themselves Christians are actually Christians. You should be able to tell that just by looking around today. People have done lots of things in the name of their religion, but that doesn't mean God is anywhere near them.

I wasn't aware that you were assigned as the ultimate authority on who is, and who is not a real Christian. Such a weighty burden you bear.
"I am on a mission from God!" cried Hitler publicly and loudly in 1934. I agree. Given what Christians have done to humanity, he sure was.

No, you do not get to twist my words the way you do the Bible.

If you can't quit the crap and start speaking truthfully, I will lose all interest in responding to your posts. Simply put, you are bearing false witness and I will not encourage your bad behaviour.

 

[barn sour]

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life.

We know a lot about it actually.

I see evidence of the natural world in nature. That shouldn’t be a surprise as never, in all of human history has there ever been a verifiable supernatural event. And no, I don’t know for sure what ignited the first spark of biological life. Why would you propose magic and supernaturalism as the cause?

Of course you don't know what ignited the first spark of biological life. You don't even have a good guess.

I do know, and have been fully persuaded by the truth I've found in the Bible.

Right and wrong are certainly not ingrained in all humans everywhere. The very fact that different cultures have decidedly different standards for right and wrong should you you that.

No, you're speaking of learned standards. I'm speaking of the ingrained conscience God created in man.

Values and ethics aren't faith-derived. If you think otherwise, imagine this: Tomorrow, it is discovered for certain there is no god. Would such information suddenly cause you to steal from me?

Of course not, because I know full well that "discovery" would be fake news.

If you answer no, then god isn't needed.

Hate to break this to you, but God is needed. He created man to have a relationship with Him, and anyone who turns from Him will miss out on His free GIFT of eternal life.

If you answer yes, then you are corrupt and immoral and that is your personality fracture, not morality's weakness.

"Morality's weekness".....surely you jest. You have nothing to base your morality on. You have no standards.

I will also cite clear differences in moral precepts with morals as a measure of right and wrong. Egyptian royalty married brother to sister; i.e., engaged in incest by our standards, and functioned successfully for thousands of years. In today's culture, such liaisons are forbidden. Which is morally correct (especially considering that the Egyptians had many gods – most people only have a few.

You're pretty funny, you know that?

As I noted earlier, I make no attempt to disprove gods. You tend to recoil in indignation that anyone would question your unsupported and decidedly weak claims to gods. You do realize that your claims to gods are the same types of claims that others make for their gods?

You certainly fight hard in denial of your Creator. ONE God. Kicking against the goads is what that's called.

You are correct that I have no reason to accept what your gods say. As your gods have never said anything to anyone, that makes sense.

U
That only tells me you are ignoring God. And that's your right.

And yes, I understand that Christianity is a proselytizing religion. As a self-entitled ambassador for Christ, you should be aware that such heavy-handed prosyeltizing, when it becomes the “believe or else”, message is not helpful.

There is a difference between being "self-entitled", and doing what is right. I certainly understand that you haven't an inkling of anything spiritual. As far as I can see, nothing will be helpful to you until you are brought to your knees by circumstances beyond your control. God is certainly able to reach you -- in spite of yourself.

"You have no (moral) standards'' is a classic Christian attempt at a slur. It's rather an odd claim as the history of Christianity depicts the most immoral acts and among the greatest cruelties to humanity.

How lucky you know with certainty what you don't know with certainty. That might otherwise be called delusional.

There's no fighting against your gods. Your preoccupation with the decisions of those who use reason and rationality to come to conclusions about existence is concerning. Its really remarkable how angry proselytizing religionists become when they can't sell their religious wares.

I might actually be ignoring your gods. Let's pretend otherwise as me ignoring your gods causes you such angst.

As to "doing what is right", I tend to be suspicious of preachy Christians who want to lecture others about what is right. There's an arrogance and a motive for doing so and I have no reason to accept lectures from hypocrites.

My saying you have no moral standard makes you mad, doesn't it?

Tell me, then, what standards do you use? Skip all the righteous indignation and answer that one question.

They call it humanism. It seems a better moral code than can be discerned from the bible if you don't cherry-pick.
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.

Ah, to their OWN lives. So thieves and child molesters have the right and responsibility to please themselves....making themselves their own god. There is nothing ethical about humanism. Each man sets his own standard of ethics. Yeah, that's working real well in this world today, isn't it?