We are well past that but if you do not want to continue I can accept that you do not want to take on the evidence I provided.
You did not provide scientific evidence, you provided a link to a weak source. I doubt if there is any scientific evidence there at all. And my sig gives you the definition of scientific evidence. You set yourself up for a trap and then you fell for it. You proved that you had no scientific evidence for God by not stating a proper test for his existence. And you also in effect admitted to the fact that the Miller Urey experiment does provide scientific evidence for abiogenesis
Once again, that is not how it works. You made a claim you need to support it properly when challenged.
Just as I thought, you did not read it yet you reject it. Then without providing any evidence you declare victory. Game over
I can readily see how it works, it is called keeping the other guy on the defensive by challenging him to provide evidence which you then disregard and avoid refuting. Game over
I looked at your source and it only had old refuted arguments. None of them were scientific.
No, you lost because you cannot support your claims. This shouldn't be that hard. You claimed to have scientific evidence. Please provide some.
I'll take that as a no.
No, you don't even understand the concept of scientific evidence. There is a reason that scientists came up with the definition quoted in my sig. People tend to be dishonest at times. That definition forces people to be honest. You only need to ask yourself two questions.
The problems are that they acknowledge that the events, material and conditions that predate the Big Bang are not known and may be unknowable... but then apply the rules and functions within this Universe to a hypothetical multiverse, that is not justifiable.
Thanks for the laugh. You are asking to refute a deity with evidence but belief in a deity is not based evidence it is based on faith. There are philosophical arguments for and against deities which if you want to get into I suggest A Tippling Philosopher on Patheos.
Theists often get jealous of the sciences. Beliefs in the sciences have to be evidence based. And that is perhaps the main reason that the sciences are so successful. As a result they feel forced to deny evidence in the sciences, which only means that they are science deniers, and claim your that their beliefs are evidence based too. Though they fail right out of the gate when they do that.
Its called Theoretical Physics. You may fail to understand its value and think itunjustifiable yet
I don't think you are using a conventional definition of theoretical physics.
This isn't even his gish gallop, it's someone else's...
Just set two search engines on full auto,This isn't even his gish gallop, it's someone else's...
If he thinks he understands any of the arguments, he should pick one to argue; if he doesn't, what's the point? I could just point him to all the relevant cosmology papers of the last 20 years as a refutation of the BGV theorem, but again, what's the point?
This isn't even his gish gallop, it's someone else's...
If he thinks he understands any of the arguments, he should pick one to argue; if he doesn't, what's the point? I could just point him to all the relevant cosmology papers of the last 20 years as a refutation of the BGV theorem, but again, what's the point?
