Question

[-57]

Do you have any evidence that this assertion explains anything? How did God do it?

Sure. Tons. What would you like to see?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Sure. Tons. What would you like to see?

That's why I asked, isn't it?

 

[-57]

That's not an argument.

That's just an assertion. An assertion that cannot be verified, is unfalsifiable, has zero supportive evidence and by extension, it is completely meaningless.

I could just as well state "nothing would exist if it wasn't for the undetectable 7-headed dragon". And it would have the exact same merrit: none.

It's not the complete argument...more of an abstract.....put out there for you to show me where it is wrong. I'm waiting.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's not the complete argument...more of an abstract.....put out there for you to show me where it is wrong. I'm waiting.

Burden of proof is yours. Don't shift it.

 

[-57]

That's why I asked, isn't it?

Now you're backpedaling. I asked you directly what you want to see and you replied back with..."That's why I asked, isn't it?"

Get specific.

 

[-57]

Burden of proof is yours. Don't shift it.

Dude, what proof would you like to see?

 

[bhsmte]

Hey, if they want to talk nonsense about something that they claim is so important to them... fine.
If they then want to be outraged and insulted about being called out for talking nonsense... fine.
If they never ever want to bring any reasonable arguments about their theology... fine.

But you cannot tell me that such a behaviour is a sign of intelligence.

It's a sign of; really, really, really needing to believe something and building the defense mechanisms to protect the belief.

Interesting stuff to watch in action.

 

[bhsmte]

Dude, what proof would you like to see?

It's your claim, enlighten us.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Now you're backpedaling. I asked you directly what you want to see and you replied back with..."That's why I asked, isn't it?"

Get specific.

Back-peddling from what? You said you had evidence to present in support of your claims.

 

[Freodin]

Here is the weakness of your reasoning:

Are you only focused on their arguments about science?
Are you willing to examine the non-science part of their wonderful arguments?

A weakness of your reasoning.
The last two sentences here are questions. But you already assume that you know my answers, and proclaim them a "weakness".

Not a good way to start a conversation that is to be about not-nonsense.

But to answer your questions: no. Usually, I do not even engage in scientific arguments... while I have a rather good education in the natural sciences, I am no expert in any field.
And, to follow that up: yes, I always examine the "non-science part" of their, ehm, "wonderful" arguments... and I usually find them quite lacking, based on the other part of my rather good education: the humanities, philosophy, logic and mathematics.

Furthermore, are you willing to pay attention to MY scientific arguments about God? Promise you that I will not talk about nonsense.

Shouldn't I rather focus in the non-scientific part of your wonderful arguments?

But, of course, if you have something to offer, perhaps even something new that I haven't heard before... bring it on!

 

[-57]

I'm interested to hear if any non-believers have seriously considered believing in God based on an argument or reason they heard from someone else, either on these forums or elsewhere.

I would think that those of you who have been on these forums for an extended period of time would have come across some argument or reason that has brought you close to believing in God, but maybe the opposite is true, maybe all the arguments just reaffirm your non-belief.

Do share if you want, thanks!

Back to the OP.

Considering the non-God sect couldn't beat the first argument...There must be something that always existed out side of space, time and matter if there is anything...Lets move on. For this motor protein to do what it does....the best answer for the creation of the motor protein in the picture below is an intelligent designer...NOT...a process that involves random mutations to the information contained in the DNA code.

 

[HitchSlap]

Back to the OP.

Considering the non-God sect couldn't beat the first argument...There must be something that always existed out side of space, time and matter if there is anything...Lets move on. For this motor protein to do what it does....the best answer for the creation of the motor protein in the picture below is an intelligent designer...NOT...a process that involves random mutations to the information contained in the DNA code.

View attachment 167785

It's probably best you let scientists sconce, and keep goddidit in your churches. You have no idea what you're talking about, and neither does the "DI."

 

[Freodin]

Back to the OP.

Considering the non-God sect couldn't beat the first argument...There must be something that always existed out side of space, time and matter if there is anything...

That is one of this non-sensical arguments I was alluding to in a previous post. It is rather easy to "beat".

We don't have the slightest clue about what "exists" outside of space, time and matter. We don't even have a clue if it makes any sense to say something "exists" outside of space, time and matter.
Thus there is no way to assert that there must "something" (whatever that may mean without the S-T-M context) "existed" (whatever that may mean) "always" (whatever that may mean).
Perhaps there is. Perhaps there isn't. But to say that there "must be" such is not based on logic.

The only way to logically conclude that there "must" be something would be to use the premises that are based on our knowledge of our space-time-matter world. And this is why this "something" that is said to exist always comes out looking very much like a space-time-matter object (or person).

 

[-57]

It's probably best you let scientists sconce, and keep goddidit in your churches. You have no idea what you're talking about, and neither does the "DI."

Then I suppose we should just shut down this forum and go along with your idea. Instead of Goddidit we can replace it with the scientist will figure it out. Meanwhile you can frolic in your faith that organelle are a byproduct of random mutations changing the information contained in DNA.

 

[-57]

That is one of this non-sensical arguments I was alluding to in a previous post. It is rather easy to "beat".

We don't have the slightest clue about what "exists" outside of space, time and matter. We don't even have a clue if it makes any sense to say something "exists" outside of space, time and matter.
Thus there is no way to assert that there must "something" (whatever that may mean without the S-T-M context) "existed" (whatever that may mean) "always" (whatever that may mean).
Perhaps there is. Perhaps there isn't. But to say that there "must be" such is not based on logic.

The only way to logically conclude that there "must" be something would be to use the premises that are based on our knowledge of our space-time-matter world. And this is why this "something" that is said to exist always comes out looking very much like a space-time-matter object (or person).

Froedin, we only scratched the surface....and you want to stop looking. Instead of presnting ID I could have presented biblical prophecy fulfilled that go against all odds. Odds so large only a supernatural being (whom I call God) could have orchestrated.
There are many, many "proofs" that point directly to God. But to you, they ALL seem to be non-sensical arguments.
Perhaps you can present an argumet as to why there is no God.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then I suppose we should just shut down this forum and go along with your idea. Instead of Goddidit we can replace it with the scientist will figure it out. Meanwhile you can frolic in your faith that organelle are a byproduct of random mutations changing the information contained in DNA.

Define "information"'as used in your reply.

 

[Freodin]

Froedin, we only scratched the surface....and you want to stop looking.

I scratched the surface... and found lead instead of gold.

Instead of presnting ID I could have presented biblical prophecy fulfilled that go against all odds. Odds so large only a supernatural being (whom I call God) could have orchestrated.
There are many, many "proofs" that point directly to God. But to you, they ALL seem to be non-sensical arguments.

Instead of evading and shifting the goalposts, you could perhaps start with admitting that your first argument was "beaten"?

Again, this is what I was talking about earlier. If you have good arguments to present, why do you start with a bad one? Because you want to?

Perhaps you can present an argumet as to why there is no God.

That would heavily depend on the God-in-Question. For the Christian God, I like to expand on the argument I made in the previous post: the God of the Bible is a God of space, time and matter. He is nothing but an enormously exaggerated human.
While I cannot prove that such a deity does not exist - and I don't have to in order to doubt such an existence - it wouldn't be compatible with the "outside of space, time and matter" variant.

 

[-57]

Define "information"'as used in your reply.

Information is the code...the instruction...in the DNA.

 

[-57]

I scratched the surface... and found lead instead of gold.


Instead of evading and shifting the goalposts, you could perhaps start with admitting that your first argument was "beaten"?

Again, this is what I was talking about earlier. If you have good arguments to present, why do you start with a bad one? Because you want to?

That would heavily depend on the God-in-Question. For the Christian God, I like to expand on the argument I made in the previous post: the God of the Bible is a God of space, time and matter. He is nothing but an enormously exaggerated human.
While I cannot prove that such a deity does not exist - and I don't have to in order to doubt such an existence - it wouldn't be compatible with the "outside of space, time and matter" variant.

The point is I have shwon there is a need for a God. You can disagree all you want. I then moved on to other proofs of a God. I understand your religion tells you that you MUST disagree with me.

 

[Freodin]

The point is I have shwon there is a need for a God. You can disagree all you want. I then moved on to other proofs of a God. I understand your religion tells you that you MUST disagree with me.

And another of the things I mentioned earlier.

See, the point it that you have not shown there is a need for a God. It is not that I simply "disagree". I explained why. But instead of responding to my argument, you ignored it and tried to move on to something different.

Unreason. Bad logic. Handwaving, belittling, insulting. Each time you have to resort to such methods, you strengthen my doubt.