Creationists: Here's your chance

[Big_TJ]

Big_TJ

First if the big bang went bang, bangs don’t explode for no reason.

What is your source that the big bang went BANG? Also, your reply is in the typical IF....THEN.... statement format; what would be your response if the big bang DID NOT went BANG?

 

[tumbleweed41]

If the Big Bang went bang.....priceless

 

[Big_TJ]

Bossbozz

This is wrong and is also a misunderstanding. The bible and the biblical God is not against doing science and discovering things. He is only against doing these things in a dishonest way. And dishonest dealings. So, God does not HOLD back progress. Not one bit. Actually many believers in God who have been scientists discovered a lot of things and helped make progress. Isaac Newton is an example.

If you want to say God holds back progress, well believing in either one of the other 4 views I mentioned would also hold back progress, accept the “I don’t know” position. But this is not true, because one can believe in God and still make progress and investigation.

Was this the same God that essentially stopped the Tower of Babel to be built? If so, why would not that be "holding back progress?"

 

[The_Evelyonian]

If the Big Bang went bang.....priceless

:sarcastic

Of coruse the Big bang didn't go bang; it went Kablooie!

I thought this was common knowledge...

 

[tumbleweed41]

For Jolly:
The Big Bang was the rapid expansion of the Singularity.
Not an actual "Bang"

 

[Jollybear]

Tumbleweed41

There you go again insinuating that I have given some creative power to the concept of "nothing"

Yea because that is just what you did.

Lets try again....
No...Cause...Is...Necessary.
Your magical deity and his creative voice is not necessary.

Let me ask you this, is ANOTHER cause other than a deity necessary? Or are you saying NO cause at all is necessary?

As for supernatural. Supernatural is a belief that things can happen beyond natural means. Beyond natural laws. Miracles, spells, divination, astrology, curses, seances,
spirits, apparitions, angels, demons, sprites, fairies, gods and goddesses are all supernatural and magical beliefs. They are beyond natural laws, and therefor, magic.

This is IGNORANT. Here is why: assuming for the moment God is real, him creating it is not magical, since he is creating from his own mind through his own words. It’s coming from somewhere (God) And if you want to say it’s magical, then something coming from nothing would be equally magical.

None that I, of anyone else I know of, can show.

That is not what I asked you. I did not ask you to show me a cause; I asked you do you believe there IS one at the quantum level?

It is obvious you do not understand. I do not know how to make this any clearer.
A cause has a predictable and repeatable resulting action.

And I don’t know how to make it any clearer either when I say people can make WRONG PREDICTIONS, therefore does that mean what they predicted wrongly does not have a cause? Come on now.

Like he planted genetic and fossil evidence of common descent? Hid the geological evidence of a worldwide flood? Planted cosmological evidence of billion year old stars?

You do not worship Jehovah, you worship Loki.

Wrong, you interpret the fossil record through a philosophical worldview of materialism. The quantum level is different.

Wrong.

No...Cause...Is...Necessary.

You know what really baffles me, is when atheists/agnostics (or whoever) sometimes pelt creationists as having no logic at all, and then they do stuff like this.

Look if no cause is necessary then you’re saying there IS no cause. It’s the same thing.

There is no contradiction. Saying no cause is necessary is not the same as saying there is no cause.

Saying no cause is necessary is not the same as saying there is no cause? What? Ok, I am NOT understanding what you’re trying to tell me. Please explain further in more detail.

This circular reasoning may be plausible to you, but to educated minds, it is nonsense.

Educated minds, give me a break. I have an educated mind, so do you, we just happen to believe two different things in regards to the education (information) we have received. “But to educated minds it is nonsense” is nonsense.

Indeed. Why do martyrs die for many of of the beliefs contradictory to Christianity?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, you’re not getting me. I need to pull my hair out.

Ok….look at my question more carefully. Why would the apostles die for a KNOWN lie? That is different than martyrs dying for something they BELIEVE in, but don’t KNOW is true. The apostles KNEW (witnessed) Christ’s resurrection and died for its cause.

Why would they die for a KNOWN lie?

 

[Jollybear]

Bossbozz

Do you ever stop to question whether you are right?

Don’t need to, your already doing that. Why not just answer my argument based on it’s own merit instead of saying this waste of time sentence?

Do you ever look into things that you are challenged on to check your understanding?

Yes I read stuff I disagree with. But this is a waste of time, just answer the merit of my argument.

It would seem not.

Wrong judgment, and is a waste of time, just answer my argument based on its own merit.

A simple look on Wikipedia would give you this in the first paragraph:

Just answer my argument based on its own merit.

What's this... a mathematical concept... set theory? Yes you could theoretically count for infinity but you could never count to infinity as it is not a number, it is a concept.

Ok, so infinity exists then.

No it's not a theory in the scientific sense, it's just an idea.

Wrong, it IS a theory in the scientific sense; it’s just not ACCEPTED as a theory in the scientific community and in schools. There is a BIG difference.

A credible scientific theory allows for predictions to made on the basis of that theory and then have those predictions to be tested and proven, creationism just doesn't stand up to this test.

Baloney it doesn’t. It sure does make predictions and it is testable. And if it’s not, then evolution would be equally not testable or falsifiable.

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

How do you know what he would ask or what his reasoning would be? This is all just fantasy in your head. I've think I've humoured you enough on this, now it's getting tiresome.

I said “what IF he said” what then would you say? You did not catch that part did you?

And what if he sent you to hell, what would your final words be to him?

Hardly a scientific breakthrough to note that seeds don't grow so well when thrown on rock compared to soil, I'm sure mankind had already figured that one out.

Right, but his purpose was not to do the work of science, was it?

Is that what I think?

Well you said above that you would tell him how to do things a little better. So yea, that is what you think. You are right and he is wrong.

Actually I think he doesn't exist so the concept of whether he is right or wrong doesn't come into it as it would be impossible for me to question the non existent actions of someone who doesn't exist.

We are assuming he exists for the sake of this argument here. Arguments go down many path ways.

I'm not sure how you can compare me to Saddam Hussien? Are you suggesting that god knows beyond a doubt that I am evil? Careful here, you're starting to give yourself away.

Yes, God knows your heart and your life and what you believe. Now I am using sadam as an analogy to explain to you what I meant. Come on man; was it really that difficult to understand my simple language? The point was, God is not bringing you into court because he don’t know, but because he gave you free will and since you think you’re alright, he wants to give you a fair trial. Come on, get the point. I am not saying you’re LIKE sadam husian, gosh.

 

[Jollybear]

Maths certainly isn't your strong point, if you struggle with percentages then no wonder you can't understand that infinity is a concept.

Unbelievable. If I am 99% sure, you cannot be 99% sure, if you are 99% sure, then I cannot be 99% sure.

Why should there be a need for a god?

To justify holding anyone accountable for one, second, to account for the apparent design, third to justify saying there is an objective reality, fourth to have our lives fulfilled by his presence.

Why would a god make stars thousands of light years away when humanity only needs one sun? Why make all the other planets and galaxies, is it just to make the night sky pretty?

Pretty, yes, and to map time.

Where would we be in our understanding of the universe if we just accepted the bible as the truth.

We would be very progressive if we still believed the bible as the truth. The bible does not stop research. And nowhere does it say that we should STOP research.

Would we still believe that physical illness is a curse of god for our sins or caused by demons and satan?

Actually, I STILL believe illness is a curse and sins cause some of those illnesses. And sometimes Satan does too. And sometimes the earth being messed up the way it is, causes it. And it’s messed up because of the sin of Adam.

Would hundreds of thousands of people be suffering unnecessarily from easily treatable illnesses because we never questioned the real causes of these things?

You can still treat the illness with medication or healthy food and exercise, but still the illness comes because of a sin cursed earth.

To accept the existence of a god and the word of the bible (or whatever holy book) as the absolute truth would would mean an end to searching for the answers and an end to progress.

This is pure false. There has been many scientists who were believers in God, some believers in the bible and they made scientific progress in history. Don’t give me that false nonsense.

We use maths and science to explain the world around us, however I can see how someone who has an extremely limited understanding of science and maths (such as you have demonstrated) can struggle with understanding the true nature of these things and so finds it far simpler to think that it's all done supernaturally by god.

You’re starting to frustrate me now. Stop saying I have a limited understanding of math and science and answer my argument based on its own merit. Thank you. If you can’t answer it, what does that tell you of your understanding of science and math?

 

[Jollybear]

The_Evelyonian

Okay, that's really enough. Now, even if the history of Yahwehism had somehow been forged by some unknown "enemies of Israel" (which is highly unlikely) it wouldn't change anything as you've yet to post any form of tangible evidence that your god even exists!

You have not given proof that Yahweh came from a former idea of gods.

I have given evidence that God exists, YES I HAVE. It’s not 100% proof, but it IS evidence. You may not like it, oh well. You’re never going to GET 100% proof for any worldview, whether God exists or not, whether the soul exists or not and what will happen to it or not, UNTIL your dead. Although before your dead, there IS sufficient evidence, which we do have. Now if you don’t want to call it sufficient, so be it, it’s still evidence, it’s just not 100% proof.

All you've done is make assertion after assertion after assertion and then, when challenged on it, stick your fingers in your ears and shout "I'm right, you're wrong, la la la la la!"

Wrong, I have taken you up on the challenge, and given you further arguments to your arguments and offered you some questions, and all you have done is shout your right and I’m wrong.

This is a thread for evidence, not assertion, so either provide some form of tangible evidence that your god exists or get off the thread.

What’s wrong, the question is too much for you to handle?

Here was the question you keep ignoring.

“Based on what I said above, I think your argument would be better if you said ‘what if I’m wrong about Yahweh? Well, what if you’re wrong and there is NO God at all?’ I think that argument would be better.

Well, if there is no God at all, then I would have wasted my time serving him, ALTHOUGH, not all of it would have been a waste of time, since a lot of it was pleasant.

Anyway, if you’re wrong, you will pay for it in the afterlife, if I am wrong, I will pay for it in this life by having wasted some of my time being about his business.

You see the predicament we are both in?”

What’s wrong, can’t handle it, can’t face it?

No, I’m not getting of the thread. Face the fact, you’re not going to get 100% proof. Even if God showed up to you, you would probably call that a hallucination. The only way your going to get this 100% proof is after your dead. But that is too late to find out then, so, you’re not safe right now in the “I don’t know” position.

I am not getting off the thread, I will respect you though and not talk to you again though, but I will continue responding to the others on THIS thread.

 

[Jollybear]

Johnhanks

This is pure gibberish. All your 'first cause' argument could possibly establish, were it to be valid, is that the universe must have a first cause we do not understand. This 'breaking the circle of eternity' drivel is your own interpolation.

You skeptics make such bad, weak arguments and responses, I swear you really do. You can call it gibberish all you want, that is not an argument and does not SHOW why it is gibberish. Show why my interpolation is wrong?

Please quote from three non-biblical sources.

Ok, I will. But remember, the bible itself is evidence because the bible does not consist of ONE book, if it did, THEN it would not be classified as historic evidence. Keep that in mind.

Ok, here is three non-biblical sources and more. Not to mention also there is the church fathers who had there martyrdom. And they were acquainted with the apostles.

Fox's Book of Martyrs

People's willingness to die for a belief does not confirm the veracity of that belief.

You’re not understanding the huge difference. There is a difference between dying for a belief and dying for what you witness.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

The_Evelyonian



You have not given proof that Yahweh came from a former idea of gods.

I have given evidence that God exists, YES I HAVE. It’s not 100% proof, but it IS evidence. You may not like it, oh well. You’re never going to GET 100% proof for any worldview, whether God exists or not, whether the soul exists or not and what will happen to it or not, UNTIL your dead. Although before your dead, there IS sufficient evidence, which we do have. Now if you don’t want to call it sufficient, so be it, it’s still evidence, it’s just not 100% proof.

What evidence? All you said was that all complexity must be designed (assertion 1). I called you on it because that would mean that god would require a designer too. You immediately created a loophole for god and called it 'eternity' (assertion 2). I asked you to simply provide some kind of evidence that this eternity existed. You posted some nonsensical stuff about passing moments being evidence of eternity (assertion 3), asked "Why wouldn't eternity exist?" and then changed your original statement to "all complexity EXCEPT god requires a designer." (assertion 4 and your second loophole).

The problem with shifting to "all complexity EXCEPT god requires a designer" is you can't have it both ways.

Either ALL complexity requires a designer and you must explain what designed god.

Or only SOME complexity requires a designer, in which case your simply drawing the line where you assert it should go.

So which is it? Does all complexity require a designer or not?

Wrong, I have taken you up on the challenge, and given you further arguments to your arguments and offered you some questions, and all you have done is shout your right and I’m wrong.

No doubt you've argued but you've yet to post anything even resembling tangible evidence.

What’s wrong, the question is too much for you to handle?

Here was the question you keep ignoring.

“Based on what I said above, I think your argument would be better if you said ‘what if I’m wrong about Yahweh? Well, what if you’re wrong and there is NO God at all?’ I think that argument would be better.

Well, if there is no God at all, then I would have wasted my time serving him, ALTHOUGH, not all of it would have been a waste of time, since a lot of it was pleasant.

Anyway, if you’re wrong, you will pay for it in the afterlife, if I am wrong, I will pay for it in this life by having wasted some of my time being about his business.

You see the predicament we are both in?”

What’s wrong, can’t handle it, can’t face it?

No, I’m not getting of the thread. Face the fact, you’re not going to get 100% proof. Even if God showed up to you, you would probably call that a hallucination. The only way your going to get this 100% proof is after your dead. But that is too late to find out then, so, you’re not safe right now in the “I don’t know” position.

I really should report this.

I am not getting off the thread, I will respect you though and not talk to you again though, but I will continue responding to the others on THIS thread.

Hmm, whatever....

 

[Willamena]

Willamena



Why can’t you believe it?

Because my "God" is even bigger than your God. Or because the idea that God's size would make him more true is astounding.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yea because that is just what you did.

:no:

Let me ask you this, is ANOTHER cause other than a deity necessary? Or are you saying NO cause at all is necessary?

No...Cause...Is...Necessary

(How many times do I have to say this?)

This is IGNORANT. Here is why: assuming for the moment God is real, him creating it is not magical, since he is creating from his own mind through his own words. It’s coming from somewhere (God) And if you want to say it’s magical, then something coming from nothing would be equally magical.

Does your God concept comply with all natural laws?
Or does it create man from dust, speak words that become matter, impregnate virgins without physical contact.
Magic.

That is not what I asked you. I did not ask you to show me a cause; I asked you do you believe there IS one at the quantum level?

What I believe is irrelevant to what has been shown.

And I don’t know how to make it any clearer either when I say people can make WRONG PREDICTIONS, therefore does that mean what they predicted wrongly does not have a cause? Come on now.

A cause has a predictable and repeatable resulting action.
Get it?

Wrong, you interpret the fossil record through a philosophical worldview of materialism. The quantum level is different.

Wrong and not the point I was making.
You claimed Loki...oops, I mean God, was tricking physicists into thinking events and particles behaved erratically and without determined cause.

You know what really baffles me, is when atheists/agnostics (or whoever) sometimes pelt creationists as having no logic at all, and then they do stuff like this.
Look if no cause is necessary then you’re saying there IS no cause. It’s the same thing.
Saying no cause is necessary is not the same as saying there is no cause? What? Ok, I am NOT understanding what you’re trying to tell me. Please explain further in more detail.

1. No cause is necessary. That is, it has been shown that beyond the constraints of physical laws in our Universe, and at the Quantum level, there is no necessity for a cause.
2. This can be translated as 'there may, or may not be, a cause'. As it has not been shown that a cause is necessary. In science, one does not attempt the illogical process of proving a negative. What must be evidenced is the positive. That is, a cause must be shown to be necessary before such cause is accepted.
3. Unless, or until, that happens, the basic truth of the matter is that no cause is necessary.

Educated minds, give me a break. I have an educated mind, so do you, we just happen to believe two different things in regards to the education (information) we have received. “But to educated minds it is nonsense” is nonsense.

Some carry their education and knowledge further than others. Free of dogmatic constraints.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, you’re not getting me. I need to pull my hair out.
Ok….look at my question more carefully. Why would the apostles die for a KNOWN lie? That is different than martyrs dying for something they BELIEVE in, but don’t KNOW is true. The apostles KNEW (witnessed) Christ’s resurrection and died for its cause.
Why would they die for a KNOWN lie?

That they believed it to be true does not make it true. Like I said, many the martyr has died for beliefs other than Christianity. And they believed as strongly as the Christians.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, what if you’re wrong and there is NO God at all?’ I think that argument would be better.

Well, if there is no God at all, then I would have wasted my time serving him, ALTHOUGH, not all of it would have been a waste of time, since a lot of it was pleasant.

Anyway, if you’re wrong, you will pay for it in the afterlife, if I am wrong, I will pay for it in this life by having wasted some of my time being about his business.

You see the predicament we are both in?”

I really had a laugh when I read this.
Pascal's Wager
If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

• Which God, gods, or deity must one insert into the wager? What assurance is there that the deity you believe in, worship and praise, is the correct deity? What if you chose wrong? With the multitude of belief systems in the world, the wager is useless.
• Should one choose belief based on weighing your odds? Would the deity you choose really appreciate this?
• Can one 'choose' to believe based on a wager?
• Basing belief on the odds is like planning your retirement on the hopes of winning the lottery, but instead of attempting to pick the right numbers, you are attempting to pick not only the right deity, but also the correct path that this deity requires for "salvation"

The only 'predicament' is for the person who accepts the wager.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Guitars_Cry



So the universe was created by humans?




I don’t understand, explain in more detail?

Well, what is the universe we know but the interaction of relationships? The models we perceive are designed through our patterning of sensory data.

 

[johnhanks]

Me: This is pure gibberish. All your 'first cause' argument could possibly establish, were it to be valid, is that the universe must have a first cause we do not understand. This 'breaking the circle of eternity' drivel is your own interpolation.

You skeptics make such bad, weak arguments and responses, I swear you really do. You can call it gibberish all you want, that is not an argument and does not SHOW why it is gibberish. Show why my interpolation is wrong?

Now you're making a basic burden-of-evidence error. Unless you can show that 'breaking the circle of eternity' has some objective meaning outside your own imagination, I shall continue to refer to it as drivel, and its use to demonstrate the sentience of your alleged first cause as gibberish.

Ok, here is three non-biblical sources and more. Not to mention also there is the church fathers who had there martyrdom. And they were acquainted with the apostles.

Fox's Book of Martyrs

This is remarkable. You are straight-facedly citing a book published in 1563 as testimony to events which supposedly took place over 1500 years earlier? The claim - here - was the existence of "MANY ancient writings" that attested to the resurrection; a 16th-century catalogue of martyrdoms does not do the job.

You’re not understanding the huge difference. There is a difference between dying for a belief and dying for what you witness.

Given that the earliest accounts of the alleged resurrection date from at least a generation later, what was 'witnessed' and what simply came subsequently to be believed are pretty well impossible to untangle.

 

[bossbozz]

Unbelievable. If I am 99% sure, you cannot be 99% sure, if you are 99% sure, then I cannot be 99% sure.

This ones going on my Facebook status! Can you really not see what is wrong with your statement?

Actually, I STILL believe illness is a curse and sins cause some of those illnesses. And sometimes Satan does too. And sometimes the earth being messed up the way it is, causes it. And it’s messed up because of the sin of Adam.

Thankfully medical science doesn't share your view! Seems a bit flimsy to me to say sometimes it's a curse, sometimes sins, sometimes satan, sometimes because Adam ate an apple... I'd like a more certain diagnosis from any doctors I consult.

Ok, so infinity exists then.

Only as a mathematical concept. Is any of this getting through to you?

Wrong, it IS a theory in the scientific sense; it’s just not ACCEPTED as a theory in the scientific community and in schools. There is a BIG difference.

Baloney it doesn’t. It sure does make predictions and it is testable. And if it’s not, then evolution would be equally not testable or falsifiable.

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?

That site is the top result in Google for Intelligent design predictions... it's almost as if you hurriedly searched for some evidence and posted the first thing you found! Hardly credible predictions.. more like observations that are already explained thoroughly by evolution. The theory of evolution allows science to make predictions on what is going to happen in areas such as the mutation of viruses and bacteria, everyday real science. It is the the foundation of biological science.

I said “what IF he said” what then would you say? You did not catch that part did you?

And what if he sent you to hell, what would your final words be to him?

I know you said what if, I tire of your what ifs.

Yes, God knows your heart and your life and what you believe. Now I am using sadam as an analogy to explain to you what I meant. Come on man; was it really that difficult to understand my simple language? The point was, God is not bringing you into court because he don’t know, but because he gave you free will and since you think you’re alright, he wants to give you a fair trial. Come on, get the point. I am not saying you’re LIKE sadam husian, gosh.

An analogy is to draw a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect, in which case you are trying to compare me to Saddam Hussien. I don't know where the comparison can be drawn between a ruthless dictator with faith in god and a peaceful, fair person without a belief in god like myself? So you're saying that I get to state my case fairly but how can it be fair when judgment would already be predetermined?

You’re starting to frustrate me now. Stop saying I have a limited understanding of math and science and answer my argument based on its own merit. Thank you. If you can’t answer it, what does that tell you of your understanding of science and math?

I've lost track of your argument... remind me?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Danmac

I agree with you, and I am looking forward to your response to what they say. We need to get them, if we don’t, it will be like letting them get away with murder, don’t let them do it now.

I'M A MUR-DIDDLY-URDLER!!!!

 

[Jollybear]

The_Evelyonian

What evidence?

Ok, based on your definition of evidence, only SOME people have that tangible evidence, it’s people who have seen apparitions of God (something you probably would call hallucinations). But even if you don’t consider them tangible, then you’re not ever going to get this tangible evidence you’re looking for. You’re never going to get it from anybody in your whole life. I am just being real with you man, you’re never going to get it. You may not like that answer, but it’s the sad reality. The reality is this, the evidence or should I put it (the data) is limited and is interpreted by us all, by you AND by me. Now based on this limited data, you have a choice and so do I. If you choose wrong, and I am right, you’re in trouble in the afterlife. If I choose wrong, then what happens to me is the same for what happens to you after death, just I would have wasted some time in THIS life.

What path do you want to pick? I am telling you, in your lifetime your NEVER EVER going to get this “tangible evidence” you want. No one will be able to give it to you, I have a high confidence in that because if anyone can give you it, it would be me since I have studied ALLOT about my religion and God, enough to make the best case there can be made for him.

You’re not going to get what you want. But that still leaves you in a predicament whether you like it or not.

All you said was that all complexity must be designed (assertion 1). I called you on it because that would mean that god would require a designer too. You immediately created a loophole for god and called it 'eternity' (assertion 2). I asked you to simply provide some kind of evidence that this eternity existed. You posted some nonsensical stuff about passing moments being evidence of eternity (assertion 3), asked "Why wouldn't eternity exist?" and then changed your original statement to "all complexity EXCEPT god requires a designer." (assertion 4 and your second loophole).

Correction, I did not change my original assertion, I just changed how I said it, but how I said it the second time is how I MEANT it the first time.

The problem with shifting to "all complexity EXCEPT god requires a designer" is you can't have it both ways.

Yes you can have it both ways in THIS case, and I kept telling you why I could. There has to be a first cause, I told why that was necessary, and I told you why nothing cannot create something and I also stated that chance is not proven, only factors are involved. I also argued that mindless energy cannot create the universe, for why would it not remain static? Also I have argued that it does not have the knowledge to realize that it needs to break the cycle of eternity in order to begin something. Therefore an intelligent cause is more plausible, to which another person just calls that gibberish without addressing it (exercise debate skill). Also eternity is not tangible, no more than TIME is tangible, but don’t tell me you don’t believe in time?

Either ALL complexity requires a designer and you must explain what designed god.

If I said God designed [g]od you would probably ask, who designed THAT God? Come on, there is a FIRST cause, if you don’t believe so, address my arguments about infinite regression or no motion. You’re never going to get this tangible SUPER HIGH standard of PROOF that you’re looking for, therefore it’s more reasonable to debate this issue using the philosophical path, instead of trying to push me or others down a SUPER high standard of proof path, which no one can give, and even YOU cannot give it for any views you may hold to either.

Or only SOME complexity requires a designer, in which case your simply drawing the line where you assert it should go.

AND…..I told you WHY I draw the LINE in a certain area, I said all complexity accept God needs a designer because it’s all complex. And God don’t need a designer because something needs to be the first cause, IT is HIM. And why him and not nothing? Because NOTHING does not do SOMETHING. And why not eternal mindless energy? Because it does not have the intellegence to realize and figure out how to break the cycle of eternity in order to BEGIN something. Therefore, God is the most plausible, based on my philosophical arguments, which is ALL we can discuss, is philosophical argument, since NO PROOF either way 100% can be given.

Get use to that, it’s going to be that way for your whole life and into all the next generations.

So which is it? Does all complexity require a designer or not?

Answered it above.

No doubt you've argued but you've yet to post anything even resembling tangible evidence.

Nobody is going to give you what you want. I have given you the BEST case for God that there can POSSIBLY be. Of course somebody else can come along and use the same case I used and say it all differently and package it with different words and phrases, but it’s still the same case.

Get use to it. You must choose and YOU ALSO must realize, you’re not safe in the “I don’t know” position.

I really should report this.

Why a need to report it? Why not just answer the question? But if you don’t want to, that’s fine, I’ll move on continuing to discuss with the few others.

Hmm, whatever....

Oh, now getting an attitude I see.

I'M A MUR-DIDDLY-URDLER!!!!

What is that mean?

 

[Jollybear]

Willamena

Because my "God" is even bigger than your God. Or because the idea that God's size would make him more true is astounding.

I think you may have misunderstood, maybe. It’s not about size, it’s about SPACE. The true God is not CONTAINED IN space, because that would mean he is created. Also the true God cannot BE space (space as we know it, kind of like a fish knows space different then we do). But the true God has to be INFINITELY BIG. Also space as we know it and as lets say fish know it slightly differently, all that space is created by this God. Therefore, if he created space he then cannot be contained within space.

Therefore the true God is infinitely big. But it’s not about size, it’s about space.

What do you think of this?