Establishing the Creator (Atheist runs away when Muslim asks probing questions)

[Gjallarhorn]

I did state that we address the issues of evidence we are sure of and not what is currently being theorized. I did state that the response was on the basis of a logical approach. I do however note that you are not responding to my request for answers and you keep asking (which I do not mind). Please do give answers and then make requests.

Give answers to what? You haven't given me the evidence I asked for. You haven't given me anything beyond opinion really.

In this case, would you say your "scientific evidence" of hidden variables in quantum indeterminacy is premature, or nonexistent? If so, we could move on to higher states of configuration, such as plants, animals, stars, etc.

 

[DunyaDawah]

The problem here is that you have not presented evidence, you have merely made empty claims.

Hi, unfortunately when I am dealing with atheists/others I usually get a barrage of questions but no logical responses to my questions. Unless you think of fundamental particles being the product of my imagination I would consider it to be evidence! If you follow the thread you will note that my initial request was to establish criteria so as to avoid any potential misunderstandings but to no avail as my atheists/other friends are quite reluctant to discuss matters in a logical, reasonable, rational and evidential manner (not all I hasten to add).

Can I kindly use my reply to you to inform all the people following this thread that I am off to work now and I will come back tomorrow after 8pm. Apologies to all and will make contact with you all tomorrow.

 

[McBell]

Hi, unfortunately when I am dealing with atheists/others I usually get a barrage of questions but no logical responses to my questions. Unless you think of fundamental particles being the product of my imagination I would consider it to be evidence! If you follow the thread you will note that my initial request was to establish criteria so as to avoid any potential misunderstandings but to no avail as my atheists/other friends are quite reluctant to discuss matters in a logical, reasonable, rational and evidential manner (not all I hasten to add).

This is nothing more than a big steaming pile of bull sh...wishful thinking on your part.

you keep talking about evidence but have not yet presented any evidence to support your empty claims.

You seem much more focused on whether you are talking with atheists than you are in actually supporting your claims with something other than claims.

Ones wonders if you are ever going get past the fact that you are talking with atheists and actually move beyond merely making empty claims....

I do find this particular empty claim most intriguing:

"I will state that logically speaking everything known to the intelligent mind had a purpose."
​

Seems to me that until you can show this premise to be true, you are doing nothing more than what you have have whined about the atheists doing for the last 202 posts...

Can I kindly use my reply to you to inform all the people following this thread that I am off to work now and I will come back tomorrow after 8pm. Apologies to all and will make contact with you all tomorrow.

knock yourself out.

 

[Storm]

Hi, unfortunately when I am dealing with atheists/others I usually get a barrage of questions but no logical responses to my questions. Unless you think of fundamental particles being the product of my imagination I would consider it to be evidence! If you follow the thread you will note that my initial request was to establish criteria so as to avoid any potential misunderstandings but to no avail as my atheists/other friends are quite reluctant to discuss matters in a logical, reasonable, rational and evidential manner (not all I hasten to add).

The only question I remember you asking was "what are your standards of evidence," which quickly received a perfectly clear and reasonable answer of "peer reviewed scientific data." You proceeded to repeat the question numerous times and complain that nobody could answer you, until the particular atheist you were targeting threw up his hands in frustration. Then you said you'd present the evidence in your next post, and he came back. At that point, you declared yourself tired, and said you'd come back "in the morning" to present your evidence. How many mornings have passed since that promise?

Now you're back, starting the whole thing over. Precisely what "logical responses" do you expect, and how have WE disappointed you?

Can I kindly use my reply to you to inform all the people following this thread that I am off to work now and I will come back tomorrow after 8pm. Apologies to all and will make contact with you all tomorrow.

OK. See you next month or so. Maybe. I advise you not to rely on the 'logical strategy' of hoping we get amnesia.

 

[DunyaDawah]

Give answers to what? You haven't given me the evidence I asked for. You haven't given me anything beyond opinion really.

In this case, would you say your "scientific evidence" of hidden variables in quantum indeterminacy is premature, or nonexistent? If so, we could move on to higher states of configuration, such as plants, animals, stars, etc.

Hi, it seems that you only consider evidence that may favour the way you think (rebuttable opinion) A few posts ago I provided you with physical evidence - DARK MATTER (not dark energy) and the logical evidence - fundamental particles, and I then asked you to rebut my evidence. If you are suggesting that the evidence I have adduced is not sufficient and you want a particular kind of discussion please say so.

 

[DunyaDawah]

This is nothing more than a big steaming pile of bull sh...wishful thinking on your part.

you keep talking about evidence but have not yet presented any evidence to support your empty claims.

You seem much more focused on whether you are talking with atheists than you are in actually supporting your claims with something other than claims.

Ones wonders if you are ever going get past the fact that you are talking with atheists and actually move beyond merely making empty claims....

I do find this particular empty claim most intriguing:

"I will state that logically speaking everything known to the intelligent mind had a purpose."
​

Seems to me that until you can show this premise to be true, you are doing nothing more than what you have have whined about the atheists doing for the last 202 posts...


knock yourself out.

Hi, I sympathize with your predicament. As I stated in my post that atheists seem incapable of responding without the use of expletives (mild or otherwise) I am sure you may be aware of fundamental particles and dark matter. If you think that is not evidence it may not be worth responding to your frankly inane posts (respectfully).

 

[DunyaDawah]

The only question I remember you asking was "what are your standards of evidence," which quickly received a perfectly clear and reasonable answer of "peer reviewed scientific data." You proceeded to repeat the question numerous times and complain that nobody could answer you, until the particular atheist you were targeting threw up his hands in frustration. Then you said you'd present the evidence in your next post, and he came back. At that point, you declared yourself tired, and said you'd come back "in the morning" to present your evidence. How many mornings have passed since that promise?

Now you're back, starting the whole thing over. Precisely what "logical responses" do you expect, and how have WE disappointed you?


OK. See you next month or so. Maybe. I advise you not to rely on the 'logical strategy' of hoping we get amnesia.

Hi, My entire thread started with a reasonable request to establish criteria (which was avoided until I made it a point that I will go with whatever is requested) and then to my 'surprise' the initial post I responded to then raised a series of points which would have been avoided had we established criteria at the outset. My position has consistently been that we deal with evidence. Respectfully, my position is that atheists/others are currently in a state of amnesia with regard to what is true!

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Hi, it seems that you only consider evidence that may favour the way you think (rebuttable opinion) A few posts ago I provided you with physical evidence - DARK MATTER (not dark energy) and the logical evidence - fundamental particles, and I then asked you to rebut my evidence. If you are suggesting that the evidence I have adduced is not sufficient and you want a particular kind of discussion please say so.

The evidence you have "adduced" isn't evidence. Please state how dark matter and fundamental particles are evidence of a creator, using peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Throwing out science-y terms and hoping they somehow reveal Allah to me won't work, so I suggest you start presenting evidence. You can start by proving that there are hidden variables behind quantum indeterminacy.

 

[DunyaDawah]

The evidence you have "adduced" isn't evidence. Please state how dark matter and fundamental particles are evidence of a creator, using peer-reviewed scientific studies.

Throwing out science-y terms and hoping they somehow reveal Allah to me won't work, so I suggest you start presenting evidence. You can start by proving that there are hidden variables behind quantum indeterminacy.

Here we go again! Can you please answer my questions which you are continually avoiding (typical insistence of having the discussion on your terms)
I asked you clearly to prove to me that dark matter and fundamental particles are not evidence of a Creator. Finally, on what basis are you using the CRITERIA (yes criteria) 'peer-reviewed articles?
I am pleasantly surprised at the lack of intelligent response from you respectfully. Again do you accept dark matter to be evidence or not? and do you accept fundamental particles as evidence or not?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Here we go again! Can you please answer my questions which you are continually avoiding (typical insistence of having the discussion on your terms)
I asked you clearly to prove to me that dark matter and fundamental particles are not evidence of a Creator. Finally, on what basis are you using the CRITERIA (yes criteria) 'peer-reviewed articles?
I am pleasantly surprised at the lack of intelligent response from you respectfully. Again do you accept dark matter to be evidence or not? and do you accept fundamental particles as evidence or not?

Burden of evidence falls on the one making the positive claim.

For example, suppose I said there is a single grain of sand on a beach somewhere that grants immortality when eaten. Which is more logical: to scour the earth and other sandy planets, eating every grain of sand in the hopes of disproving my evidence-less claim, or to ask me to prove that such a grain exists? Obviously, as I supposedly have knowledge of this grain of sand, I should have the easier and more logical task.

Or, as the lovely Hermione put it:

“But that’s – I’m sorry, but that’s completely ridiculous! How can I possibly prove it doesn’t exist? … I mean, you could claim that anything’s real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody’s proved it doesn’t exist!”

So off you go then. Prove your point.

 

[McBell]

Hi, I sympathize with your predicament. As I stated in my post that atheists seem incapable of responding without the use of expletives (mild or otherwise) I am sure you may be aware of fundamental particles and dark matter. If you think that is not evidence it may not be worth responding to your frankly inane posts (respectfully).

Again with a big pile of pleasant sounding bull ****.

You have presented nothing in the way of evidence.
You have made some claims and instead of supporting your claims, you are desperately clinging to the false notion that what you claim is by default true unless your claims can be proven false.

Your ability to make the big steaming piles of bull **** you offer up in response to the flat out requests that you support your claims look like some sort of reasoned reply does not distract me from the fact that they are still nothing more than big steaming piles of bull ****.

So now the question is: Are you going to actually support your claims or are you not yet done flinging the poo?

 

[DunyaDawah]

Burden of evidence falls on the one making the positive claim.

For example, suppose I said there is a single grain of sand on a beach somewhere that grants immortality when eaten. Which is more logical: to scour the earth and other sandy planets, eating every grain of sand in the hopes of disproving my evidence-less claim, or to ask me to prove that such a grain exists? Obviously, as I supposedly have knowledge of this grain of sand, I should have the easier and more logical task.

Or, as the lovely Hermione put it:


So off you go then. Prove your point.

O Dear! Do you really fear evidence to such an extent that you resort to the words of an authors mind and its contents yet completely ignore the evidence presented of dark matter AND fundamental particles? Please restrict your posts to my question so that we can move the discussion on a logical footing.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

O Dear! Do you really fear evidence to such an extent that you resort to the words of an authors mind and its contents yet completely ignore the evidence presented of dark matter AND fundamental particles? Please restrict your posts to my question so that we can move the discussion on a logical footing.

Oh dear! Did you forget to provide said evidence of dark matter and fundamental particles proving a creator? You should work on that.

 

[DunyaDawah]

Again with a big pile of pleasant sounding bull ****.

You have presented nothing in the way of evidence.
You have made some claims and instead of supporting your claims, you are desperately clinging to the false notion that what you claim is by default true unless your claims can be proven false.

Your ability to make the big steaming piles of bull **** you offer up in response to the flat out requests that you support your claims look like some sort of reasoned reply does not distract me from the fact that they are still nothing more than big steaming piles of bull ****.

So now the question is: Are you going to actually support your claims or are you not yet done flinging the poo?

Emotional responses show a lack of logical coherence in your argument. I know that it is difficult to discuss reasonably when you cannot answer a question but I am quite sympathetic so I forgive you your unpleasant post. Evidence is dark matter and particles now please tell me that is not evidence.

 

[DunyaDawah]

Oh dear! Did you forget to provide said evidence of dark matter and fundamental particles proving a creator? You should work on that.

So you do accept that dark matter and fundamental particles are evidence. Please confirm that you accept them to be evidence then we can move on.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

So you do accept that dark matter and fundamental particles are evidence. Please confirm that you accept them to be evidence then we can move on.

Accept them as evidence of what, precisely?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Evidence is dark matter and particles now please tell me that is not evidence.

Dark matter and particles are not evidence of a Creator.

But you are welcome to try and prove otherwise. Please proceed.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hi, it seems that you only consider evidence that may favour the way you think (rebuttable opinion) A few posts ago I provided you with physical evidence - DARK MATTER (not dark energy) and the logical evidence - fundamental particles, and I then asked you to rebut my evidence. If you are suggesting that the evidence I have adduced is not sufficient and you want a particular kind of discussion please say so.

Do you even know what dark matter is?

 

[Riverwolf]

Emotional responses show a lack of logical coherence in your argument.

Evidence is dark matter and particles now please tell me that is not evidence.

They are not evidence because:

1. You need to demonstrate how they are evidence (you have not), and
2. We don't actually know what dark matter is; it's just a term to refer to a hypothetical substance that may be the cause of a gravitational phenomena. Last I checked, it's not even known for sure if it exists.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Do you even know what dark matter is?

I don't, but I'm still pretty sure that he can't use it to prove a Creator God. We'll see.