• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Lets just do a thought experiment for a second and replace one word with another:

This is what your "science" is, all that it is: "Magic time Done It!"


That is all your saying to me is that time did it.

As I didn't adress this in my last post, a quick response to this nonsense.

Is "time" an observable, testable process? Is "time done it" such a process? Or what does really happen?

Cars. Let's talk cars. You park you car on a street. You leave, come back two hours later and your car is no longer there.
Time has passed. You know that. So "magic time done it!"

There's your answer... or is it? What has happened during this time? What process that takes time occured that makes your car "disappear".

Ah, "magic man done it!". It was designed. It was intelligently controlled!

Is that now your answer? What was it that was "designed"? What did happen that was "intelligently controlled"?

Science will provide you with a method to get a real answer. Science isn't content with "magic time" or "magic man". Science can give you the means to find out what was involved, what happened. Science doesn't stop at "X done it". Science wants to find out HOW x done it.

Your version doesn't. Your version cannot. You stop at "magic man done it".

This is not science.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You don't get it, do you?

You can criticize the models of evolution as much as you want. You can cite studies that demonstrate flaws and problems as many as you want. If done right, this is science.

But as long as you cannot provide any "science" or "math" that shows your point, all you do is conjecture. Empty hot air.

And that is the problem, the huge flaw in your model: you don't have any math or science. You can claim that "we are seeing design more and more" until the cows come home to roost... but you have no way of backing up this claim.
And even in the highly unlikely occurance that you do... you still don't have any science. You still have your "magic man" in the center of it all... the "creator" and "designer" who has no attribute beyond "he designed it". It is a black box. Perpetually closed.

That is not science.

This has nothing to do with my DNA or inherent bias. If I wanted to provide an atheistic model for... existence..., and I wanted to do it in the same way as you did... I could, easily.

Let's do "science". The process of evolution, the origin of life and the origin of the universe is based on the process of quantum-derived extrapolatory transversaleponidration! This process can cause universes, life and diversity of life, and also gives the appearence of "design" for those who want to see it, without being designed.

q.e.d, slam dunk... there is no God.

I could do that. But it wouldn't be science.

Your right I guess I have failed you somehow.
I don't know what I have not done. I have tried over time to show you the math and the science or give you the clues to find this on your own.
Have I failed you?
Did you look?
Did you challenge your beliefs?
You must!

Or maybe I did fail you.
I wouldn't be surprised but only disappointed in myself that I was not able to show you beyond the the sytem I was taught. I did not rise enough.
I will keep trying I will try to find better ways ... I was not born to be a teacher perhaps

I want to free you my friend ... that much is true.

My motives are not for money .... or power or something else but ... only for truth.

And you don't have to believe that either.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Your right I guess I have failed you somehow.
I don't know what I have not done. I have tried over time to show you the math and the science or give you the clues to find this on your own.
Have I failed you?
Did you look?
Did you challenge your beliefs?
You must!

Or maybe I did fail you.
I wouldn't be surprised but only disappointed in myself that I was not able to show you beyond the the sytem I was taught. I did not rise enough.
I will keep trying I will try to find better ways ... I was not born to be a teacher perhaps

I want to free you my friend ... that much is true.

My motives are not for money .... or power or something else but ... only for truth.

And you don't have to believe that either.
You still don't get it.

This is not in any way about my beliefs. This is not about the (perceived or real) flaws in real scientific theories or models.

This about the flaw in YOUR belief.

Believe that God created the universe. Believe that he created it in six days if you want. Believe that the earth is flat or hollow or holographic. Believe whatever you want... you are free to do that.

But if you really are after "truth", you should be able to accept that your beliefs are just that.

This is not science.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
As I didn't adress this in my last post, a quick response to this nonsense.

Is "time" an observable, testable process? Is "time done it" such a process? Or what does really happen?

Cars. Let's talk cars. You park you car on a street. You leave, come back two hours later and your car is no longer there.
Time has passed. You know that. So "magic time done it!"

There's your answer... or is it? What has happened during this time? What process that takes time occured that makes your car "disappear".

Ah, "magic man done it!". It was designed. It was intelligently controlled!

Is that now your answer? What was it that was "designed"? What did happen that was "intelligently controlled"?

Science will provide you with a method to get a real answer. Science isn't content with "magic time" or "magic man". Science can give you the means to find out what was involved, what happened. Science doesn't stop at "X done it". Science wants to find out HOW x done it.

Your version doesn't. Your version cannot. You stop at "magic man done it".

This is not science.

You do see the problems with this right?
Or do you need ... Don't want to say it like that ... Ok there are some problems ... I would rather not spell them out.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
You do see the problems with this right?
Or do you need ... Don't want to say it like that ... Ok there are some problems ... I would rather not spell them out.
No, please, "spell them out". After all, this is what science does. Testing, probing, tackling problems.

You say you have the science. It should be no problem for you to show it here.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
You still don't get it.

This is not in any way about my beliefs. This is not about the (perceived or real) flaws in real scientific theories or models.

This about the flaw in YOUR belief.

Believe that God created the universe. Believe that he created it in six days if you want. Believe that the earth is flat or hollow or holographic. Believe whatever you want... you are free to do that.

But if you really are after "truth", you should be able to accept that your beliefs are just that.

This is not science.
Sounds to me actually like you are coming at this wrong. Like you are not studying the questions or the people asking the questions. You are assuming a lot of things right off the bat. I don't understand that except that unless you are coming at this half cocked(like a gun half in use) you are ready to go with no target.

For example you are putting on to me beliefs that you do not know where I stand on for example.

But I will help you out. As far as creationism goes nd 6 days as you refer I have no disrespect to the Christians as far as I am concerned their beliefs sound way more sound to me then yours. What are yours? That we came from nothing we can go beyond over 1 in 10 to 40,000 and beyond? That there is no design ? They have something I can test and that is their testimony to the planet. They have good works well beyond the atheist? Do you want me to show you what they have done for the rest of us?

Are you sure you want to see that?

Are you ready to face that truth?

I doubt it.

There is no way you would want to see it. I don't believe in an instance you will ask me for the proof of their lasting testimony that is why I wont give it unless you ask.

Because you wont lol.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
No, please, "spell them out". After all, this is what science does. Testing, probing, tackling problems.

You say you have the science. It should be no problem for you to show it here.

Honestly I thought you were going to sleep ... fine :(
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Sounds to me actually like you are coming at this wrong. Like you are not studying the questions or the people asking the questions. You are assuming a lot of things right off the bat. I don't understand that except that unless you are coming at this half cocked(like a gun half in use) you are ready to go with no target.
Studying the questions? The people asking the questions?

Here you are. You assert that there is a God, responsible for life, because you disregard every other explanation.

This is the question: do you have evidence to back up your assertion?
I studied it. The answer is "no".

For example you are putting on to me beliefs that you do not know where I stand on for example.
These were just examples of beliefs that people who assert "God" have. Whether you share them or not is irrelavant. Basically, they have the same reason to assert these beliefs as you do: they claim that they are correct, that other explanations are invalid and there they are right.

But I will help you out. As far as creationism goes nd 6 days as you refer I have no disrespect to the Christians as far as I am concerned their beliefs sound way more sound to me then yours. What are yours? That we came from nothing we can go beyond over 1 in 10 to 40,000 and beyond? That there is no design ? They have something I can test and that is their testimony to the planet. They have good works well beyond the atheist? Do you want me to show you what they have done for the rest of us?
"Christians are nice, therefore God created the Earth"? Is that an argument?

Are you sure you want to see that?

Are you ready to face that truth?

I doubt it.
Yes, and that gives you all the justification not to show anything. Perfect cop out!

There is no way you would want to see it. I don't believe in an instance you will ask me for the proof of their lasting testimony that is why I wont give it unless you ask.

Because you wont lol.
Really? Please provide me with your proof of their lasting testimony!

Honestly I thought you were going to sleep ... fine :(
Sleep? It is not even noon yet! I still have a few hours before my shift starts.
(Ever heard of timezones?)
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
As I didn't adress this in my last post, a quick response to this nonsense.

Is "time" an observable, testable process? Is "time done it" such a process? Or what does really happen?

Depends are we talking quantum level or macro or your interpretation between the two.
That's important because time is relative in the quantum level no matter what and very relative depending on your theory as to how it will relate on the macro level. Just as consciousness to matter and energy would be. So there are multiplied dimensions of course and so on. Don't want to get to deep not sure you will even respond.

Cars. Let's talk cars. You park you car on a street. You leave, come back two hours later and your car is no longer there.
Time has passed. You know that. So "magic time done it!"


What I was referring to was between a natural cause vs an intelligent cause and now you are taking it into the quantum level or theoretical level ... uhhh no ... hate this .


There's your answer... or is it? What has happened during this time? What process that takes time occured that makes your car "disappear".

Depends on what evidence we find after ... man this is the same garbage I had to debate earlier with my buddies ... fine whatever ... Ok lets just do this. If your car is completely gone and there is no debree field now what>? Ok so gravity ... so lets explore that we can look down the any possible way gravity would take your car and look for an explanation ... seriously do I have to continue? ... Please no????

Ah, "magic man done it!". It was designed. It was intelligently controlled!

Ok after logically ruling out everything beyond a random sprinkler and a mob of cats moved your car you would have to conclude that intelligence at some point unless you believe in magical processes. Me I'm going with intelligence duh.

Is that now your answer? What was it that was "designed"? What did happen that was "intelligently controlled"?

No cats acting randomly :(

Science will provide you with a method to get a real answer. Science isn't content with "magic time" or "magic man". Science can give you the means to find out what was involved, what happened. Science doesn't stop at "X done it". Science wants to find out HOW x done it.

Your version doesn't. Your version cannot. You stop at "magic man done it".

This is not science.

You are drinking and that's ok ... that's fine ... do that.
I get it.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Here you are. You assert that there is a God, responsible for life, because you disregard every other explanation.

What other explanation? There either is an "outside intelligent agent" or there is not. There are only two don't try and dodge the question bro.

This is the question: do you have evidence to back up your assertion?
I studied it. The answer is "no".


Keep going back in the thread as you appear to be doing. You will find it lol.


These were just examples of beliefs that people who assert "God" have. Whether you share them or not is irrelavant. Basically, they have the same reason to assert these beliefs as you do: they claim that they are correct, that other explanations are invalid and there they are right.

weak someone could just push that right back on you.


"Christians are nice, therefore God created the Earth"? Is that an argument?

never said that but "Christians are nice and yes God did create the Universe". No my beliefs are based on science. I am sadly not of the fiber of Christians at this point and time but in truth I feel a pulling to them.


Yes, and that gives you all the justification not to show anything. Perfect cop out!

Ah man somebody complained the last time I data dumped ... just ask me what it is you want I can try and find it ... its not like I am seriously conspiring with the Amish Council of lets Deface the Atheists or the ACoLDtA or something ... yeah that's actually what we did. I have my credentials.


Really? Please provide me with your proof of their lasting testimony!

Don't ... just don't ... You don't want it

Just assume I'm bluffing on this one ok?



Sleep? It is not even noon yet! I still have a few hours before my shift starts.
(Ever heard of timezones?)
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
A quick tip for responding to larger posts.
Instead of using colour formating, type out the relevant [ quote ] and [/ quote] tags before and after the parts you want to respond to. This works just as the standard quote function, but allows others to respond to your post alone, without having to remove the coloured previous quotes.
Depends are we talking quantum level or macro or your interpretation between the two.
That's important because time is relative in the quantum level no matter what and very relative depending on your theory as to how it will relate on the macro level. Just as consciousness to matter and energy would be. So there are multiplied dimensions of course and so on. Don't want to get to deep not sure you will even respond.
Let's keep it on the macro levels. Both biological life as well as cars work on this level. So there is no need to obfuscate the matter.

What I was referring to was between a natural cause vs an intelligent cause and now you are taking it into the quantum level or theoretical level ... uhhh no ... hate this .
I am taking it to the quantum level? Your car is a subatomic particle now, and is moved on the quantum level?

Get real, pal!

Depends on what evidence we find after ... man this is the same garbage I had to debate earlier with my buddies ... fine whatever ... Ok lets just do this. If your car is completely gone and there is no debree field now what>? Ok so gravity ... so lets explore that we can look down the any possible way gravity would take your car and look for an explanation ... seriously do I have to continue? ... Please no????
You are so close. Looking for evidence. Postulating hypotheses, based on experience and previous observations and extrapolations of that. That's.... SCIENCE!

Ok after logically ruling out everything beyond a random sprinkler and a mob of cats moved your car you would have to conclude that intelligence at some point unless you believe in magical processes. Me I'm going with intelligence duh.
So, after ruling out (which takes a little more than 'I don't agree with it'), you are going with "intelligence". Because... why?

So your answer to your car missing is "Alex done it!". Who or what is "Alex"?

And now think carefully: in your system, "Alex" is the intelligence that made your car go away. No methods, no means, no way to test, no explanations... just "Alex done it".

And there you have stopped doing science.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Ask me one more time and I will answer you seriously.
One more time, and indeed just this one more.

Please provide me with the proof you claim to have.

Ah man somebody complained the last time I data dumped ... just ask me what it is you want I can try and find it ...
It's quite easy. What you have done until now is shown informations that cast doubt on the existing scientific explanations. That is in itself valid, regardless of the validity of these claims.

And now do the positive thing and provide evidence that your hypothesis is the correct one. Not by exclusion, but by positive evidence.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
A quick tip for responding to larger posts.
Instead of using colour formating, type out the relevant [ quote ] and [/ quote] tags before and after the parts you want to respond to. This works just as the standard quote function, but allows others to respond to your post alone, without having to remove the coloured previous quotes.

oK lets give this a try ... I would appreciate if your advice works I am trying it now. .. (see if it works)
Let's keep it on the macro levels. Both biological life as well as cars work on this level. So there is no need to obfuscate the matter.


I am taking it to the quantum level? Your car is a subatomic particle now, and is moved on the quantum level?

Get real, pal!
I THINK we are talking two different things and I no longer want to miss understand you I want to speak on the same language. You are clearly someone that understands the science on a certain level starting to get that so now I want to understand what you are saying in reference to what I am saying. I want us on the same page lets go one thing at a time. Lets work through these problems.

You are so close. Looking for evidence. Postulating hypotheses, based on experience and previous observations and extrapolations of that. That's.... SCIENCE!
I AM trying :)

So, after ruling out (which takes a little more than 'I don't agree with it'), you are going with "intelligence". Because... why?
Because after my searching I find no other possibility.

So your answer to your car missing is "Alex done it!". Who or what is "Alex"?
Seriously can we get beyond the car thing ... I thought you were a hack ... ok if your a scientist lets just move on to the serious lol.

And now think carefully: in your system, "Alex" is the intelligence that made your car go away. No methods, no means, no way to test, no explanations... just "Alex done it".

And there you have stopped doing science.
No actually had the convo with a scientist that worked through the coals like you just did but then we got down to the what if there was no other possible explanation other then intelligence? Then how do you define the intelligent interaction etc.
That's when its gets awesome.

Ok lets see if this quote thing worked ... if so thanks.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I'm going to leave your quote intact and just start at the last question and then go back. Why would the origins of life be different? Because life is different. It always was different. Its monumentally different. It is something special and on a different plain. Like a different higher deminsion. It is not a just a bunch of molecules just like a car is not just a bunch of metal. There is something fundamentaly higher about the organization of the parts and what it represents.

Why? What's so special about it?
And how does that lead to creationist beliefs?

So old beliefs fell way and that means there is no God?

No. It's just that there is a clear pattern here....
Humanity has a history of attributing just about anything they don't (yet) understand to some undemonstrable, undetectable, supernatural deity. It's called "the god of the gaps".

Theistic humans clearly have a tendency to stuff their gods into the gaps where scientific ignorance reigns, instead of just saying "we don't know (yet)".

And historically, not once did it turn out to be valid or correct.

Except as we search deeper into science and the universe we are seeing the appearance of Design it looking ... well IT IS A DESIGN.

We don't, actually.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Why? What's so special about it?
And how does that lead to creationist beliefs?

I can give you science on the creationist beliefs so I can't go far on that. But I do not say they are wrong its just that I don't know enough .. I can't say. But I respect them big time and will defend them .. in what ever small way I can at what little level I can.


No. It's just that there is a clear pattern here....
Humanity has a history of attributing just about anything they don't (yet) understand to some undemonstrable, undetectable, supernatural deity. It's called "the god of the gaps".

Theistic humans clearly have a tendency to stuff their gods into the gaps where scientific ignorance reigns, instead of just saying "we don't know (yet)".
of course and we can see a clear history of that for example with the God's of the Romans, Greeks and so on. And?
What does that have to do with an "intelligent outside agent" which of many of those would have not been able to grasp? Or of Darwin if he knew what GRN's or the processing system of the DNA?

And historically, not once did it turn out to be valid or correct.



We don't, actually.
That's just science ... science moves on it goes towards truth most times. There can be serious obstacles like an establishment like religion that fight it for a time. But what if science is leading us to a designer?
 
Upvote 0

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
32
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
That's just science ... science moves on it goes towards truth most times. There can be serious obstacles like an establishment like religion that fight it for a time. But what if science is leading us to a designer?

It would be pretty shocking when it turns out that there is a designer considering how terribly designed most things are. We should revoke this guys designing license.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
oK lets give this a try ... I would appreciate if your advice works I am trying it now. .. (see if it works)
A lot better. You can still go one step further. Use the "reply" button, as you normally would. That brings up the whole quoted post, complete with poster reference, in your text box. Leave the top [ quote ] line alone. The additional infos identify who you quoted, and notifies the poster that they were responded to.

Now if you reached the end of a text-block you want to quote, end it with [/ quote ]. Type your response, and before the next quoted block, start a new quote with a simple [ quote ]

I found that this is the best way of dealing with longer posts.

I THINK we are talking two different things and I no longer want to miss understand you I want to speak on the same language. You are clearly someone that understands the science on a certain level starting to get that so now I want to understand what you are saying in reference to what I am saying. I want us on the same page lets go one thing at a time. Lets work through these problems.
The problem is quite simple, and still you don't seem to understand it: you are using an unevidenced and untestable assertion as the basis for your position.

Because after my searching I find no other possibility.
And that is the gist of this problem. You did find NO OTHER possibility... so you assert a possibility that you still cannot find, but assume as inevitable.

You simply assert a solution for your problem, without giving any evidence that it is or is not real.

Seriously can we get beyond the car thing ... I thought you were a hack ... ok if your a scientist lets just move on to the serious lol.
Seriously?
You said that "math" shows your position right. So, let's talk maths.
What is the square root of -1?
You can do sums and products and sines and cosines all day, and you won't find a real solution for this question.
Now "science" (math) came up with a solution. The square root of -1 is a number different from real, rational, natural, or even irrational numbers. We call these numbers "imaginary numbers", we do the maths, and find that we can indeed to all the usual maths with these numbers. We have found a solution.

You are still doing the sums and products and sines and cosines, don't find a solution and declare "I cannot see any other possibility... it must be zero!"
You cannot do any maths to show that this solution is true... all you keep doing is showing that 1, and 1/2 and -3.14152 isn't a solution. You are no longer doing maths.

No actually had the convo with a scientist that worked through the coals like you just did but then we got down to the what if there was no other possible explanation other then intelligence? Then how do you define the intelligent interaction etc.
That's when its gets awesome.
But you cannot show intelligence as a possible explanation. You have done nothing to show it. You simply assert that it IS a possible explanation, without evidence.

And that, dear fellow, is not science.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
It would be pretty shocking when it turns out that there is a designer considering how terribly designed most things are. We should revoke this guys designing license.
Is that what you think lol?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.