MY favorite arguments for the existence of the Christian God:

[DogmaHunter]

I get it. You now want to pretend that your claim wasn't that fire burns fingers, it was that a certain type of fire burns fingers, right? Either way, we're still back to square one and you haven't provided an explanation for why one type of fire burns fingers and the other doesn't.

Exactly. And the difference between mere observations ("I put my finger in fire and it burned") and explanations ("why does it burn my finger") was explained in detail to him, as per his own request.

But as he said, he didn't bother to read it. He only seems interested in making the same (false) claims and throwing false accusations around, over and over, while demanding explanations and when he gets them, he doesn't read them and just starts over.

 

[DogmaHunter]

But does that change what I said?

Yes.

I told you the reasons why I call you dishonest. The fact that you are a christians, is not one of them.

Off course, if you're not reading the posts you are replying to and are just making stuff up, you're not going to know what the posts said.

Another useless comment that changes the scheme of the subject so you can pretend you are right. Try this, take a look at the post again, pay close attention, see what it actually claims, then see your "no".

You wondered if I called you dishonest because you are christian.
I responded by saying no, that's not why I'm calling you dishonest. And then went on explaining the actual reasons that I am calling you dishonest.

What part is tripping you up?

Now, are you saying no, because you just like the sound of the word? Or are you saying no, as in what I said does not happen?

You said:

"How dishonest can you get" or "That Christian sure is dishonest"

Implying that while I said the first, I really mean the second.

I responded that your implication / insinuation is incorrect and went on listing the real reasons for calling you dishonest.

Once more: what part is tripping you up?

See, I know it happens, Ive seen it several times

Then go complain where it actually happens.

, just as I'm certain about the science experiment and proof, yet an automatic "no" and argument each time to something perfecly correct.

I explained the error in your reasoning. But as you yourself admitted, you didn't bother to read it. So continue bathing in your condescending ignorance. It's fine.

 

[Dave RP]

Go ask a native from say a remote village with no modern technology whatsoever beyond a wooden/stone bowl exists, exactly how a micro processor works?

If my point needs further explanation, just ask.

Yes your point needs further explanation, please elucidate.

What would help is if you would answer a simple question with a proper answer.

First, as you seem obsessed by the impossibility of "something from nothing" how do you square that with god, who somehow exists, unseen, un-measurable, undetectable yet all powerful and came from nothing? Who or what made god, how did he/ she/ it/ they arrive? You can't seem to understand that you are being totally contradictory when you state that it is impossible for something to come from nothing in regards to the universe/ big bang yet you slavishly follow the idea of the ultimate something from nothing by hooking god onto creation.

Second, I have no idea what your analogy is supposed to describe. I can't explain how wi-fi works or how the internet works, or how the hadron collider works, I couldn't make a TV from scratch, so what?

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of evidence: HAPPY THANKSGIVING, everyone!

 

[Dave RP]

Speaking of evidence: HAPPY THANKSGIVING, everyone!

Thanks, we don't do thanksgiving in the UK but I hope you have a nice day.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Second, I have no idea what your analogy is supposed to describe. I can't explain how wi-fi works or how the internet works, or how the hadron collider works, I couldn't make a TV from scratch, so what?

He is drawing an analogy to how "incromprehensible" god's ways and methods are to use puny mortal humans. That god's ways and methods would be as incomprehensible to us as microchip technology would be to some primitive homo sapiens who lives in a hut and knows nothing at all about modern civilisation.

I responded by saying that such primitives wouldn't be running around claiming that things like micro-chips exist and that he should think about that for a few seconds.

He responded kind of buthurt to that. I guess he was frustrated that his "analogy" backfired on him.

If I'm wrong about it being an analogy and the reason for the analogy... then indeed, I have no clue what he was trying to say. I can't imagine any other meaning for those sentences.

But I'm guessing that we will never know. The guy isn't exactly known for explaining himself.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now would you care to touch on the details/reasoning of the post, or just make baseless claims.

Which post? which claims?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you seem obsessed by the impossibility of "something from nothing"...

Yes; it's a misunderstanding of what the relevant physical theories are saying. A misunderstanding that has been explained, but continues to be trotted out as a convenient strawman.

'Something from nothing' means something from, for lack of a more comprehensible term, 'empty space' (rather than 'nothing' as complete absence of anything, which would be absurd). An 'empty space' of, for example, quantum fields, that could be of infinite duration.

Of course, there are many other cosmological hypotheses involving eternal universes or multiverses of various kinds, that have also been mentioned, but are conveniently ignored - perhaps he realises they don't sound as absurd as the ideas he's promoting

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your claim was that if a man puts his finger in a fire it gets burnt. I provided evidence that this is not always the case. So rather than admitting that you were wrong, you ask me if I'm sure about what I'm demonstrating. Well yes, I am sure. I provided evidence which refutes your claim.


I get it. You now want to pretend that your claim wasn't that fire burns fingers, it was that a certain type of fire burns fingers, right? Either way, we're still back to square one and you haven't provided an explanation for why one type of fire burns fingers and the other doesn't.

And here I was certain you would catch on.

Of course I don't want to pretend that or anything else, I merely want to point out that you changed things and did an improper experiment to prove mine wrong, you added what was it, lotion/whatever to the mix? So it is no longer what I described. And you were genuinely unable to pick up on that?

Your twist is a kin to putting on asbestos gloves, putting them/your finger in the fire for the length of time it would take to burn the average finger, and then telling me, "See, you were wrong, my finger is not burned".

Stunning.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Which post? which claims?

The one you replied to....Pretty simple just keep up with the subject....If you need anymore hand holding on that, let me know, and I'll explain how that works.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The one you replied to....Pretty simple just keep up with the subject....If you need anymore hand holding on that, let me know, and I'll explain how that works.

Do we also get to not read that post and then pretend that you didn't explain anything?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The one you replied to....Pretty simple just keep up with the subject....If you need anymore hand holding on that, let me know, and I'll explain how that works.

If you mean #260, it was just bluster and assertion. No significant details or reasoning to address.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What would help is if you would answer a simple question with a proper answer.

What'r you talking about? It was the best possible proper answer I could give. It simplified things for present company, just what I needed to do. however I admit, I wrongly expected a bit too much, so here ya' go.

On the natives level it would all appear to be magic how a processor works because it's so far beyond his comprehension. Just as on God's level what he does has a perfectly reasonable/logical explanation, but to us, it seems impossible. That simple.

I mean face it, we're down here comparing "Rocket science" to intelligence and struggling to get to other planets with it, while God has been creating the planets, the people and the materials that give us our low form of technology for, well, forever, and even his technology is now, well, as old as God.

Where did God come from? He doesn't say, and if he did, wouldn't the same question arise? How is that possible? At which point I would have to answer...way above my head and most likely yours as well. And just as is already evident, as long as it's above your head it's going to be considered magic, or fake/lie...oh well.

 

[Dave RP]

What'r you talking about? It was the best possible proper answer I could give. It simplified things for present company, just what I needed to do. however I admit, I wrongly expected a bit too much, so here ya' go.

On the natives level it would all appear to be magic how a processor works because it's so far beyond his comprehension. Just as on God's level what he does has a perfectly reasonable/logical explanation, but to us, it seems impossible. That simple.

I mean face it, we're down here comparing "Rocket science" to intelligence and struggling to get to other planets with it, while God has been creating the planets, the people and the materials that give us our low form of technology for, well, forever, and even his technology is now, well, as old as God.

Where did God come from? He doesn't say, and if he did, wouldn't the same question arise? How is that possible? At which point I would have to answer...way above my head and most likely yours as well. And just as is already evident, as long as it's above your head it's going to be considered magic, or fake/lie...oh well.

Oh well indeed.

Lots of things are above my head, I find quantum physics very difficult to understand, my mathematical skills are mediocre and I was never much good at chemistry. However I value the traditional scientific method, form a hypothesis, check it by experimentation, get it peer reviewed, amend and refine.

That’s what science does.

What I think you do is to ignore all that and try to persuade us that this mysterious god exists with absolutely zero evidence. The fact that you “believe” is sufficient for you, that’s fair enough but come on - you can’t expect me to suddenly believe in something which I consider to be ridiculous.

Yes I call it magic, I call it fake - let’s be honest, to believe in a mysterious “thing” that can Just think things into existence, who is everywhere all at once but can’t be seen, heard or felt is the very definition of magic.

If ever I see any measurable evidence of this goddy thing I’d believe in its existence, but to date there has been none.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If you mean #260, it was just bluster and assertion. No significant details or reasoning to address.

And what pray tell else would I expect you to say? lol. Jeez people, turn the attitude off.

I find it hard to believe you didn't put together the fact I had very good reason to stop posting at someone who is making ridiculous laughable claims. Read back and understand, or don't, and please stop expecting me to lead you through figuring out how to comprehend/keeping up with simple conversation. It's called contrariness on your part, and I'm not going to waste my time with it any more than I will someone who makes clearly ridiculous claims not worth arguing.

But, wait, once one runs out of argument...silly of me to expect them to concern themselves with the facts before they make baseless comments meant only to demean. Great way to pretend we have a leg up I suppose but most see it for what it is. Makes perfect sense to me anyway...and not at all uncommon here.

 

[Kenny'sID]

If ever I see any measurable evidence of this goddy thing I’d believe in its existence, but to date there has been none.

What's your measurable evidence for the beginning, and is it based on faith or fact?

Have you "formed a hypothesis on it, check it by experimentation, gotten it peer reviewed, amend and refine.."

If so, what was the outcome? That is what you are telling us you trust in, right?

Or are you now getting tricky on me and moving up beyond creation? If so, slow down a bit, or explain.

You just aren't going to catch on are you? Try this, you have nothing, I have nothing, but at least my nothing makes sense.

If we were taking a spec of dust suddenly falling apart and making two specs of dust from nothing for no reason, it, even then, would be barely believable but all this by accedent??...Give me a break, people.

 

[Dave RP]

What's your measurable evidence for the beginning, and is it based on faith or fact?

Have you "formed a hypothesis on it, check it by experimentation, gotten it peer reviewed, amend and refine.."

If so, what was the outcome? That is what you are telling us you trust in, right?

Or are you now getting tricky on me and moving up beyond creation? If so, slow down a bit, or explain.

You just aren't going to catch on are you? Try this, you have nothing, I have nothing, but at least my nothing makes sense.

If we were taking a spec of dust suddenly falling apart and making two specs of dust from nothing for no reason, it, even then, would be barely believable but all this by accedent??...Give me a break, people.

Sorry but how does making up a thing called god and then saying god “made” it all make any sense whatsoever?

To answer your question, no I do not have any measurable evidence for the beginning, I am not a physicist. I have not undertaken any experiments or published any scientific analysis, but others have. That’s how knowledge spreads.

I have read some physics and there is agreement that the evidence proves the universe is expanding, therefore in the past it was much smaller. In the very distant past it was very small indeed and expanded from that state of being very small. As I understand it, that very rapid expansion from something very very small is called colloquially the “Big Bang”.

I don’t have the faintest idea what was the beginning, but I do believe in the logic and common sense that says if something is a certain size now and is expanding, it must have been much smaller previously.

To say that god created everything is the same as saying that a magic elephant with a purple trunk created everything, both are impossible to prove and both require the same amount of faith. So maybe the great purple trunked elephant did make the universe, and if scientists eventually discover the evidence, they’ll be mightily surprised.

However in the absence of such evidence, I’ll continue to believe that the scientific method is the best way of discovering the truth about how the universe works. I don’t feel the need to make a magic creator up.

 

[Kenny'sID]

To answer your question, no I do not have any measurable evidence for the beginning, I am not a physicist.

You don't have to be a physicist... does *anyone* and what were their findings on the beginning?

Until you can show me findings on how it started, all you have is tha same as you accuse me of having.

You're really going to just say, they have evidence, and expect that to mean a thing to me, as in "OK your right, you say they said, so done deal...no God". That means nothing to me and it shouldn't be enough for anyone. People claim a lot of things, so show me the evidence/the findings you have faith it, show me what it proves, and explain how it proves it.

 

[Dave RP]

You don't have to be a physicist... does *anyone* and what were their findings on the beginning?

You don't have to be a physicist... does *anyone* and what were their findings on the beginning?

Until you can show me findings on how it started, all you have is tha same as you accuse me of having.

You're really going to just say, they have evidence, and expect that to mean a thing to me, as in "OK your right, you say they said, so done deal...no God". That means nothing to me and it shouldn't be enough for anyone. People claim a lot of things, so show me the evidence/the findings you have faith it, show me what it proves, and explain how it proves it.

Mr. Hawking has some ideas:

The Origin of the Universe

I think he is not in the “god did it” camp.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Mr. Hawking has some ideas:

The Origin of the Universe

I think he is not in the “god did it” camp.

If I read every paper someone linked to here, I would have no time for life, much less time to post here. I always insist you bring a condensed version to the board and am doing that now.

Did you read it and are convinced it's true? Or are you just throwing things my way?