Why does God leave no tracks?

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Ed1wolf]

Quote the relevant section that states that circles are not round, if that is your position.

That is not my position, my position is that circles are circular as seen definition no. 3.

 

[dcalling]

I had something happen to me years ago. Not under medical
help by man till a bit later.

Must be a once in a life time experience I read that most people with those experiences have a different perspective with life.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[Davian]

That is not my position, my position is that circles are circular as seen definition no. 3.

#495, Davian: "Circles are not round?"

#496, Ed: "Apparently not"

You said that circles are not round. That page says nothing of the sort.

Continue failing if you like.

 

[Peter1000]

Woah boy. First you skim the article and erroneously say it's not talking about an acausal Big Bang. Then when I correct you, you want evidence for the proposition. But the whole point of this was to show you what the scientific consensus is. Now you're moving the goalposts and showing an inability to follow the thread on top of your deficiency in reading comprehension.

But here's your evidence for the acausal Big Bang:

Let's just assume this is the case. This is still just a punt. The space-time enveloping our universe is still subject to the point illustrated in the graphic above.



Some propose that infinitely many universes exist and that, in fact, every single possible state of our universe is actualized in some other universe. Let's call this Proposition X. I do not think Proposition X is impossible, but I don't believe it's actually true either. Regardless, Proposition X is sufficient, but not necessary, for us to find ourselves where we are now.

So Christians like you are (mostly incorrectly) pointing out questions and then claiming that they can answer these questions if only we grant them the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, disembodied mind who exists for no reason and with no cause and whose very existence cannot even be questioned. And they see no problem whatsoever in terms of debate etiquette with this assumption. But then if an atheist says that they, too, can solve the problems of fine-tuning or creation of matter ex nihilo if only they are granted that Proposition X holds for no reason and with no cause, the Christian finds this assumption to be such an overwhelming intellectual liability that they simply cannot even progress in the conversation until the assumption is verified.

The Christian simply cannot and will not hold his own beliefs to the same level of scrutiny that he holds other claims to. And it's not even close. It's actually more like their starting position is that they assume their own position is true and impossible to be shown otherwise, and that their opponent's position is false and impossible to be shown otherwise. Such a person is completely unreasonable and it is impossible to have a fruitful discussion.



No, lol. Causes by definition have effects.



Assertion. Or have you examined nothing?

You say: Woah boy. First you skim the article and erroneously say it's not talking about an acausal Big Bang. Then when I correct you, you want evidence for the proposition. But the whole point of this was to show you what the scientific consensus is. Now you're moving the goalposts and showing an inability to follow the thread on top of your deficiency in reading comprehension.

Did you notice that you provided no scientific evidence, but what you did provide was scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus is something, but in reality it is nothing more than a big guess (theory). So it is really, the next thing to nothing. But sometimes it sounds good, and sometimes it makes for good book revenues.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You say: Woah boy. First you skim the article and erroneously say it's not talking about an acausal Big Bang. Then when I correct you, you want evidence for the proposition. But the whole point of this was to show you what the scientific consensus is. Now you're moving the goalposts and showing an inability to follow the thread on top of your deficiency in reading comprehension.

Did you notice that you provided no scientific evidence, but what you did provide was scientific consensus.
Scientific consensus is something, but in reality it is nothing more than a big guess (theory). So it is really, the next thing to nothing. But sometimes it sounds good, and sometimes it makes for good book revenues.

You're more than welcome to participate in a conversation, but jumping in without reading what was said prior to your entrance is simply butting in. Kindly take your butting in elsewhere.

 

[Peter1000]

You're more than welcome to participate in a conversation, but jumping in without reading what was said prior to your entrance is simply butting in. Kindly take your butting in elsewhere.

When your scientific evidence turns out to be scientific consensus, I don't have to read what was said prior to know that you are fudging, and call you on it.

 

[SkyWriting]

I suspect I asked this question before in a different form, because I wonder about it a lot. Sometimes I like to imagine a benevolent God that I can talk to and so forth. I tell myself that maybe the Judeo Christian God is fiction, but my more generic chameleon-like God might actually exist.

The problem is that science can never find God's tracks. I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks. I ask myself if God can actually do anything meaningful without leaving tracks. Then there is the imaginary friend possibility. Imaginary friends serve a purpose and leave tracks in the real world even though they exist only in a human's imagination. I suppose the imaginary friend God that exists in human imaginations leaves tracks. Is it possible that God is real, but He restricts Himself to our imaginations? In other words, there is a real God that inspires humans to create imaginary friend Gods in their minds that then interact with the world? Could science tell if there was a real God behind these imaginary friend Gods?

Science can only support things that can be controlled.
With no control over God, one cannot create an
experiment that can reliably be repeated or have
a predictable outcome.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

When your scientific evidence turns out to be scientific consensus, I don't have to read what was said prior to know that you are fudging, and call you on it.

1. Yes you do. How do you know he wasn't asking about the consensus?

2. I gave evidence in post #482. This is why it's unwise to butt in without reading what's been said.

 

[dcalling]

1. Yes you do. How do you know he wasn't asking about the consensus?

2. I gave evidence in post #482. This is why it's unwise to butt in without reading what's been said.

You can't have a t=0 if time is infinite, there is no start of time.

 

[MWood]

Why does God leave no tracks?
He is lite on his feet?

 

[fatboys]

I suspect I asked this question before in a different form, because I wonder about it a lot. Sometimes I like to imagine a benevolent God that I can talk to and so forth. I tell myself that maybe the Judeo Christian God is fiction, but my more generic chameleon-like God might actually exist.

The problem is that science can never find God's tracks. I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks. I ask myself if God can actually do anything meaningful without leaving tracks. Then there is the imaginary friend possibility. Imaginary friends serve a purpose and leave tracks in the real world even though they exist only in a human's imagination. I suppose the imaginary friend God that exists in human imaginations leaves tracks. Is it possible that God is real, but He restricts Himself to our imaginations? In other words, there is a real God that inspires humans to create imaginary friend Gods in their minds that then interact with the world? Could science tell if there was a real God behind these imaginary friend Gods?

Behind every belief is an amount of faith. Faith is the motivating force of the universe. God has perfect faith. We are here to develop God like faith. That is that we can know something is true we have a belief it is true or we have a confidence that when we say mountain remove it will move.

 

[-57]

I suspect I asked this question before in a different form, because I wonder about it a lot. Sometimes I like to imagine a benevolent God that I can talk to and so forth. I tell myself that maybe the Judeo Christian God is fiction, but my more generic chameleon-like God might actually exist.

The problem is that science can never find God's tracks. I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks. I ask myself if God can actually do anything meaningful without leaving tracks. Then there is the imaginary friend possibility. Imaginary friends serve a purpose and leave tracks in the real world even though they exist only in a human's imagination. I suppose the imaginary friend God that exists in human imaginations leaves tracks. Is it possible that God is real, but He restricts Himself to our imaginations? In other words, there is a real God that inspires humans to create imaginary friend Gods in their minds that then interact with the world? Could science tell if there was a real God behind these imaginary friend Gods?

The fossils buried in the geological column are tracks of God left over from the world wide flood of Noah's time

 

[-57]

Behind every belief is an amount of faith. Faith is the motivating force of the universe. God has perfect faith. We are here to develop God like faith. That is that we can know something is true we have a belief it is true or we have a confidence that when we say mountain remove it will move.

Faith is a gift from God.

 

[fatboys]

Faith is a gift from God.

So the faith that a atheist has in there is no God comes from God.

 

[-57]

So the faith that a atheist has in there is no God comes from God.

No. The faith of the atheist came from the fall in the garden.