The Belief That Life Was the Result of an Accident Is Unscientific

[K9Buck]

I and most Christian theologians believe that God has been proven to the point of God being more plausible than not.

In a court of law it wouldn't qualify as "proof" but, rather, a "preponderance" of the evidence.

 

[JimBowie1958]

in your opinion, which.. pardon me but you invoked the infinite regression fallacy already which is a canaard

you dont understand how to think

critical thinking should have been a class, thats too bad.

I have had several Critical Thinking classes and got As in all of them, so what?

I demonstrate my critical thinking skills and you cannot recognize them because you are a moron who simply throws shit back and forth and yo consider that thinking. It is not.

That you think a well known fallacy to be a canard speaks more than I need to.

 

[fncceo]

Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion

The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.

The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently

The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.

And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?

That's just logical thinking and we're talking to an atheist that subscribes to the ABG (Anything But God) theory. He'll go along with a multiverse, the universe created itself, you name it as long as it's ANYTHING but God.

However, in the face of mounting scientific knowledge, you must be willing to redefine your concept of G-d. For example, it was once perfectly acceptable to believe that gods shared human characteristics and all lived together on the top of a mountain. When someone finally climbed that mountain, that belief became scientifically untenable.

Today, many people believe in a G-d as a benevolent (or not so benevolent) Caucasian man in a long white beard that sits on a throne in the clouds and is directly responsible for the fall of each sparrow.

However, it doesn't take a lot to poke theological holes in that particular concept of G-d. So, in order to stay relevant, the definition of G-d must expand. G-d can be, and most probably is, infinitely more complex than our scriptures describe him (not for a moment suggesting G-d has a gender).

Of course, some will say that if you must redefine your concept of G-d then why believe in G-d in the first place. But, a child has a very limited understanding of his cosmos. His definition of that cosmos expands as he assimilates more information of his surrounds. Humans, similarly expand the boundaries of our knowledge of the cosmos and must as similarly redefine not only our place in it but our relationship with the G-d that exists in that cosmos.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I and most Christian theologians believe that God has been proven to the point of God being more plausible than not.

In a court of law it wouldn't qualify as "proof" but, rather, a "preponderance" of the evidence.

And yet we call it proven much as courts do when they convict someone of a crime.

But there are facts that demonstrate that something must have started the flow of time.

And since this resulted from an initiated event we know that there is an intellect or will behind it.

Something triggered the Big Bang. Whatever it was was either the Prime Mover or another greater event in a much lager multiverse that is merely the latest event of a chain that goes back once again to a Prime mover.

One can try to kick the can down the road as much as possible but one cannot escape from the mathematical necessity for a beginning of the whole chain at some point.

 

[JimBowie1958]

When you understand how to prove something, alert me.

No, I am going to have a couple more chuckles at your expense and then forget you completely.

You are not worth the time, idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

However, in the face of mounting scientific knowledge, you must be willing to redefine your concept of G-d. For example, it was once perfectly acceptable to believe that gods shared human characteristics and all lived together on the top of a mountain. When someone finally climbed that mountain, that belief became scientifically untenable.

Today, many people believe in a G-d as a benevolent (or not so benevolent) Caucasian man in a long white beard that sits on a throne in the clouds and is directly responsible for the fall of each sparrow.

However, it doesn't take a lot to poke theological holes in that particular concept of G-d. So, in order to stay relevant, the definition of G-d must expand. G-d can be, and most probably is, infinitely more complex than our scriptures describe him (not for a moment suggesting G-d has a gender).

Of course, some will say that if you must redefine your concept of G-d then why believe in G-d in the first place. But, a child has a very limited understanding of his cosmos. His definition of that cosmos expands as he assimilates more information of his surrounds. Humans, similarly expand the boundaries of our knowledge of the cosmos and must as similarly redefine not only our place in it but our relationship with the G-d that exists in that cosmos.

What you have described is merely the popular concepts of God.

The Jews had it right millennia ago with the empty Mercy Seat on the Ark of the Covenant; the Invisible God Who Cannot Be Depicted by Human Hands. Aristotle proved that a Creator must exist, unlike the panoply of anthropomorphic godlings most worshiped in his time. But this is the concept of God that drove his pupil Alexander to conquer the known world in search of more knowledge and Truth.

God is truly beyond our ability to completely grasp what He is, much less be some naked dude in the clouds.

 

[JimBowie1958]

that you cannot explain it otherwise does not make it a necessity

Let me illustrate the Infinite Regression Fallacy to you with some imaginary peanuts, lol.

1) One cannot count to infinity. I can shell a hundred peanuts or a million peanuts or a billion of them, etc. But I cannot shell an infinite number of peanuts because THERE IS NO LAST PEANUT. Most 5th graders can understand this concept, but you might have trouble with it. That is fine since you are an idiot anyway and I am posting this mostly for the benefit of lurkers anyway.

2) One cannot start with an infinite number of peanuts and shell all of them down to a final count of 3...2....1. Why BECAUSE THERE IS NO FIRST PEANUT, just like there is no last peanut in the first point above.

This is why one cannot start with an infinite regressed moment in time and count down moments till one arrives at the present moment since THERE IS NO FIRST MOMENT.

Now go ahead and quibble with those points but they are obvious to any thinking person, which sadly leaves you out of contention, roflmao.

 

[JimBowie1958]

that you cannot explain it otherwise does not make it a necessity

Let me illustrate the Infinite Regression Fallacy to you with some imaginary peanuts, lol.

1) One cannot count to infinity. I can shell a hundred peanuts or a million peanuts or a billion of them, etc. But I cannot shell an infinite number of peanuts because THERE IS NO LAST PEANUT. Most 5th graders can understand this concept, but you might have trouble with it. That is fine since you are an idiot anyway and I am posting this mostly for the benefit of lurkers anyway.

2) One cannot start with an infinite number of peanuts and shell all of them down to a final count of 3...2....1. Why BECAUSE THERE IS NO FIRST PEANUT, just like there is no last peanut in the first point above.

This is why one cannot start with an infinite regressed moment in time and count down moments till one arrives at the present moment since THERE IS NO FIRST MOMENT.

Now go ahead and quibble with those points but they are obvious to any thinking person, which sadly leaves you out of contention, roflmao.

I will quite easily expose the flaw in this line of reasoning But first you have to commit to two things..

number one ...enough of the ad hominem if you really expect me to bother. number two..... study the difference between assertion and fact. quite plainly a lot of your assertions are based upon the fact that your imagination can do no better. "We have not observed any different ....therefore it's impossible" is not a fact, it's an assertion.

This is set theory mathematics, dude, not imagination.

Please, show me why you are a total moron.

I gots time.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Feel free to show it to me and I'll let you know if I think it's b******* or not....... past that no point in having a discussion

The OP showed it to you and you went into k*nt mode.

The Opie did not show me proof of a Creator sorry. If thats enough for you then cool but we have different standards apparently

The Infinite Regression Fallacy proves there must be a Creator, dude.

And you probably have no idea what that is, do you?

The infinite regression fallacy is flawed because the Creator would have to have a Creator otherwise the fallacy disproves itself

You validate that deniers have to use limited and dishonest logic to support themselves.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You failed. I wont waste my time if ad hom is your go to....sorry not sorry go fry some eggs

Lol, go piss up a rope, fool.

I dont care about your stupid ass lame-o shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

me: you have no proof
you: yes i do yes i do.
me: give it a shot
you: infinite regression fallacy
me: omg. ermm kay

roflmao, that is not what has been said, and if anyone thinks it is then they are beyond remedy.

 

[Weatherman2020]

[
Unable to prove it in your opinion,which is immaterial since you have shown that you do not care to grasp what people are telling you anyway.

If thats proof to you, then hell i see what im dealing with anyway and like i said...
useless
you dont reason correctly

Lol, I did not give any proof in my statement above and did not attempt to.

You do not even know what proof and reason are, do you?

i have a much firmer grasp than you do, apparently

me: you have no proof
you: yes i do yes i do.
me: give it a shot
you: infinite regression fallacy
me: omg. ermm kay

In all your blabbing you still won’t tell us why elements of the Periodic table write music. Or care to listen to music.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Not true, when Im talking about origins I dont commit to any flawed reasoning because its the most interesting topic that there is.
Its hard to do over the internet.... when everyone just shoves their logically flawed assertions in your face and wastes 6 hours combatting that, alone.

You cannot even grasp the Infinite Regression Fallacy, but we all have flawed thinking?

ROFLMAO, this is just too ******* funny