I asked you over and over for proof of god. Not a "higher being". God.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Religion, Faith, and Spirituality
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 02:47 PM)
I asked you over and over for proof of god. Not a "higher being". God.
We can't have an intelligent discussion about "god" if we aren't using the same definition of god. I have no idea what definition you're using. Please spell out exactly what you mean by "god." Then I will tell whether I can prove
that
exists or not.
~~
Matthew 15:14 -
NoShirtNoShoesNoService — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 04:02 PM)
Please spell out exactly what you mean by "god." Then I will tell whether I can prove
that
exists or not.
Wrong, that's not how it works.
It is your initial tacit claim that this god character of yours exists; so the onus is on you to prove, with credible evidence, that this deistic claim of yours is valid, and that your or anyone else's belief that the existence this god character (using
ANY
definition) is therefore justified.
So you use any definition you want; and then provide proof, through credible evidence, that this "god", "higher being", or whatever other semantic euphemism you want to use, actually exists.
Can you do that? Because you haven't done so thus far.
God did not create man in his own image; man created god in his own image. -
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 08:01 PM)
I won this argument, you just didn't get the memo.
The notion that "natural agencies" initiated life on a previously molten Earth has been rejected as impossible, at least for the purposes of this discussion. I would go further and say that it has been proven impossible for any discussion, but I'll take what I can get for the moment.
Now if natural forces did not, as agreed, initiate life on a previously molten Earth, what did? It has been agreed that an "intelligent designer" did. How is that not a higher being? Are you under the impression aliens with no more powers than humans assembled the first life on Earth? The onus is then on you to prove such a claim. We don't have the technology. You've been watching too much science fiction if you think we do.
You must provide details
, which I am certain you'll find do not yet exist.
Even if aliens could send a rocket into space with the means to assemble the first life on some distant barren planet
you still have the problem of their origin
. You might say that other aliens before them were involved, then yet other aliens before them and so on. That tactic is known as "infinite regression" because you can't stop the chain.
There are two more very serious problems.
The science of the big bang prohibits infinite regression.
After the big bang there are no aliens yet in the entire universe to assemble life anywhere.
If you reject the science of the big bang and similar theories of cosmology that proceed from the simple to the complex,
the onus is on you to explain how the complex appears without going through simple stages
. With infinite regression (if there is such a thing) there is no need for evolution for example. If there "just always existed" life that hopped from planet to planet it could just as easily have been on arks with a full cast of living things; people, apes, horses, cows and what not. There is no need for humans to evolve from apes if they "just always existed infinitely" and hopped from planet to planet.
Notice that to win your case you are rejecting quite much established science. Is that what you would like to do?
What I find often with atheists is that they are trying to persuade people that there is no magic. I suppose it's an admirable effort. I'm all for realistic expectations myself. In order to prove there is no magic they need science that is quite magical. They lose the whole point. Giving science the credit for magic doesn't make magic go away.
~~
Matthew 15:14 -
NoShirtNoShoesNoService — 9 years ago(January 15, 2017 08:40 PM)
Science explains the cosmos, and religion does not.
You lost what you thought was this argument decades ago; you just continue to deny acknowledgement of that fact.
Because you still have no evidence for the existence of any god, as you know.
God did not create man in his own image; man created god in his own image. -
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 02:08 AM)
Science explains the cosmos, and religion does not.
Which science? Evolution? The big bang? Suspended animation? Higgs boson?
I lost nothing. I simply proved what did
not
assemble life in the first place. It was not an accident or any combination of accidents. That is science that can be proved in labs. Being science, intelligent design should be taught in schools.
Your explanation of the cosmos is not science. It is not a proof of anything. It is just a bad attitude. It is just a refusal to accept the evidence and the logic.
If you want to believe in infinite regression, fine, just realize that you are in the same position you accuse others of being in with no consistent or clear "logic and evidence." Your story is full of holes, contradictions and assumptions.
~~
Matthew 15:14 -
NoShirtNoShoesNoService — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 07:13 AM)
Which science? Evolution? The big bang? Suspended animation? Higgs boson?
Cosmology.
Being science, intelligent design should be taught in schools.
"Intelligent Design" is not science; it is Creationism with a Lab coat draped around it.
It's not "Intelligent", because there's no evidence for any intelligent being having created the universe or life on Earth.
It's not "Design", because there's no evidence for any "designer"; or that the universe, Earth, life on Earth, or any other aspect the cosmos was in fact designed.
You have not provided any credible evidence for the existence of any god, gods, or any otherwise supernatural being.
Where is your credible evidence?
God did not create man in his own image; man created god in his own image. -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 03:30 AM)
The notion that "natural agencies" initiated life on a previously molten Earth has been rejected as impossible by me, at least for the purposes of this discussion
Corrected.
The science of the big bang prohibits infinite regression
Which is quite untrue. There is no means of telling how many other Big Bangs there have been, even we admit Arlon's word 'regression' here, a procession of events which implies linear time - which physics tells us did not even exist before the Big Bang.
If I reject the science of the big bang and similar theories of cosmology that proceed from the simple to the complex, the onus is on you to explain how the complex appears without going through simple stages.
Corrected.
What I find often with atheists is that they are trying to persuade people that there is no magic
Yes, magical thinking can be a wonderful thing can't it, lol?
There is no need for humans to evolve from apes if they "just always existed infinitely" and hopped from planet to planet.
Just as one can say there is no need for humans to evolve from apes if they spontaneously appeared on earth due to magic?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 05:41 AM)
There is no means of telling how many other Big Bangs there have been,
If one big bang can't produce life, 25 of them won't either. Something (someone) must have started without any big bang.
Just as one can say there is no need for humans to evolve from apes if they spontaneously appeared on earth due to magic?
This topic sure has an appropriate title, doesn't it?
~~
Matthew 15:14 -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 04:36 AM)
There is no means of telling how many other Big Bangs there have been,
If I don't believe one big bang can't produce life, 25 of them won't either
Corrected.
Just as one can say there is no need for humans to evolve from apes if they spontaneously appeared on earth due to magic?
This topic sure has an appropriate title, doesn't it?
Well, it appears that we have to rule out humans appearing via natural causes. What else is left except magic and the supernatural?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
graham-167 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 06:58 PM)
We can't have an intelligent discussion about "god" if we aren't using the same definition of god.
Go ahead and define it however you please, when giving me the evidence.
I have no idea what definition you're using.
If you're offering the proof then it's up to you to provide the definition. Define the god and show the proof.
If you actually have something to offer, that is - it's really starting to look like you're just stalling here.
If I could stop a rapist from raping a child I would. That's the difference between me and god. -
AlfredMordeir — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 11:04 AM)
"Of course when Kitzmiller v. Dover is overturned in the courts present science will have to be revised in order to make the alien answer any good."
So then you admit you lied in your OP.
Secular Nation Podcast
http://tinyurl.com/SecNat -
cham313 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 12:32 PM)
Of course when Kitzmiller v. Dover is overturned in the courts
Say, that reminds me of the time that Galileo was forced to admit that he was wrong about the solar system!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair -
Thorshairspray — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 03:34 PM)
What?
What does what Graham-167 might or might not have said have to do with Kitzmiller V Dover being overturned and even if it was overturned, why would science need to be re written?
they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.