Search results

Okay. Other than people (humans) that create, I do not know what you mean by "creator". I don't imagine that myself. I don't imagine that either. Why need it be intelligent? By "God", do you mean the character in the bible, that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence...

^_^

Whatever. How did you establish that "There must be an eternal first cause"?

Is that why you don't respond to my questions? I just assume that you are stumped.

The power of religion is not disputed. However, as they (the religious) cannot all be right (and they may all be wrong), this really speaks of the power of religion to deceive.

When I look up "good" in any dictionary, I see no mention of gods, yours or otherwise. You are redefining the word as you see fit. Your defence is intellectually bankrupt. I asked, is that like a perpetual motion machine? A perpetual motion machine delivers power without needing an outside...

Mind control. Does that not make your theology morally bankrupt, if one is to be held accountable for what one believes? I do not deny it, I am simply not convinced. Self-deception is sufficient to explain every religious belief that I have been presented with. Maybe he will give it two...

Do you have testable criteria by which this can be established? No?

That is not what I asked. You don't even have evidence that "intelligence" was involved, other than your opinion. I am not asking for proof. Try sticking to the question being asked of you: How do you propose we test your conclusion to see if it is accurate, or if you are simply projecting...

I have never made such a conclusion. That seems unnatural to me, as the only "intelligence" that I have encountered has been the property of a brain, so it could not have been what put those laws into place. How do you propose we test your conclusion to see if it is accurate, or if you are...

Do you drive a Dodge?

You did not address my question.;) Having pondered this somewhat, it would seem that theistic conclusions, by their very nature of being unfalsifiable, are only going to be as provisional as you wish them to be. I mean, on the existence of God, how could you be shown to be wrong?

Interesting. May I infer from your comment that [your] theistic conclusions are not provisional?

Was that not also the case for luminiferous aether?

Been there, and it has been explained to me that Christianity is not about justice. Now, you can start that thread if you like, address it here, or abdicate. And you have yet to address the self-defeating nature of arguments for theism, as pointed out in #21.

Really, how hard would it have been for the Bible writers to jot that down at the time? Do you actually go through life confident in your belief that everyone that disagrees with you is wrong, and is simply in denial, and is without excuse? Every Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Buddhist, those with no...

...because the burden of evidence is never to be on you, of course. :wave:

You have yet to address the self-defeating nature of arguments for theism, as pointed out in #21. You also made references (#446, #457) to "justice" in relation to your particular religion; it is my understanding that theism - Christian theism, in particular - is not about justice, but belief...

Thanks for that. I figured that I had finally pinned down what you were actually doing in this thread. I do not fit your description of that label, and it was an obvious attempt at evasion and misdirection. That is quite descriptive of tactic that you yourself use in response to my questions...