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

[Gjallarhorn]

with the greatest of respect we allowed the use of your criteria and on that basis we have asked the question. Merely making a statement and attempting to pigeonhole the subject is evading the question. Any scientific paper that is going to be written (and peer-reviewed) will require a proposition that is based in reality. So I would kindly ask you to address the question accordingly.

You can't figure this out on your own?

Okay...If there is a creator, there must necessarily be a creator. Is there any evidence showing the universe required a creator? Specifically, a conscious one.

 

[idav]

If we have mutually agreed that we are going to adopt scientific evidence as the basis for establishing the existence of a Creator you need to inform us what kind of evidence will satisfy you of the existence of the Creator.

Showing evidence that matter or energy can be created would be a good start. Perhaps something that refutes the law of conservation of energy which states that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed".

 

[Storm]

with the greatest of respect we allowed the use of your criteria and on that basis we have asked the question. Merely making a statement and attempting to pigeonhole the subject is evading the question. Any scientific paper that is going to be written (and peer-reviewed) will require a proposition that is based in reality. So I would kindly ask you to address the question accordingly.

So, you have no science to prove a Creator, because that's not based in reality?

OK. Are you going to become an atheist now?

 

[DunyaDawah]

You can't figure this out on your own?

Okay...If there is a creator, there must necessarily be a creator. Is there any evidence showing the universe required a creator? Specifically, a conscious one.

again I kindly ask you to answer our question because in your last post you have speculated on issues rather than provided the necessary criteria. The word conscious requires definition but before we go there please answer our original question. I look forward to your reply.

 

[Riverwolf]

again I kindly ask you to answer our question because in your last post you have speculated on issues rather than provided the necessary criteria. The word conscious requires definition but before we go there please answer our original question. I look forward to your reply.

Dude, what kind of answer are you looking for?

You asked what kind of evidence would satisfy him, and he responded by saying scientific, peer-reviewed research papers.

Do you not consider such things as evidence?

I'm honestly not sure what you're expecting.

 

[DunyaDawah]

Dude, what kind of answer are you looking for?

You asked what kind of evidence would satisfy him, and he responded by saying scientific, peer-reviewed research papers.

Do you not consider such things as evidence?

I'm honestly not sure what you're expecting.

what we have basically requested was a criteria in terms of scientific evidence that would satisfy this person (Gjallarhorn) about the existence of the Creator. The criteria will allow us to understand what kind of evidence to adduce. I hope this clarifies the issue.

 

[Storm]

Who is "we?"

 

[Gjallarhorn]

what we have basically requested was a criteria in terms of scientific evidence that would satisfy this person (Gjallarhorn) about the existence of the Creator. The criteria will allow us to understand what kind of evidence to adduce. I hope this clarifies the issue.

Restating yourself is not clarification. Give me physical evidence of a creator. Hell, give me logical proofs of a creator. If you don't have any, what are you doing here?

 

[DunyaDawah]

Who is "we?"

I usually use the term 'we' as a plural of respect.

 

[Storm]

I usually use the term 'we' as a plural of respect.

OK, that sentence made no sense whatsoever.

Language barriers aside, Gjallarhorn already answered your question: any scientific evidence of a creator will satisfy him.

 

[DunyaDawah]

Restating yourself is not clarification. Give me physical evidence of a creator. Hell, give me logical proofs of a creator. If you don't have any, what are you doing here?

At last !! Some form of criteria has been produced. Requesting physical evidence in itself requires a criteria (what kind of physical evidence will satisfy you?), secondly when you request a logical approach, even that would require a yardstick where with to determine whether the evidence adduced is to the satisfaction of the person requesting the evidence. I sincerely cannot make it any simpler.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

At last !! Some form of criteria has been produced. Requesting physical evidence in itself requires a criteria (what kind of physical evidence will satisfy you?), secondly when you request a logical approach, even that would require a yardstick where with to determine whether the evidence adduced is to the satisfaction of the person requesting the evidence. I sincerely cannot make it any simpler.

...you want me to argue your points for you? No, I won't. You have your task. Play your role.

 

[DunyaDawah]

So, you have no science to prove a Creator, because that's not based in reality?

OK. Are you going to become an atheist now?

You have kindly pointed out the importance of establishing criteria before discussing a matter. The very issue I am trying to avoid is this urge to merely make statements and dodge the issue of evidence.

 

[Storm]

You have kindly pointed out the importance of establishing criteria before discussing a matter. The very issue I am trying to avoid is this urge to merely make statements and dodge the issue of evidence.

Then why do you "merely make statements and dodge the issue of evidence" with every post you make? Doing something is a singularly ineffective way of avoiding it, no?

 

[DunyaDawah]

...you want me to argue your points for you? No, I won't. You have your task. Play your role.

This my friend is the problem I face with Atheists/Others that when specific issues are raised the atheist/others will always insist that the way they are seeing it is the way it ought to be. On an evidential basis I have requested objective criteria and if you cannot provide it kindly say so, so that we can move on. I look forward to a reasoned response.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

This my friend is the problem I face with Atheists/Others that when specific issues are raised the atheist/others will always insist that the way they are seeing it is the way it ought to be. On an evidential basis I have requested objective criteria and if you cannot provide it kindly say so, so that we can move on. I look forward to a reasoned response.

So, your tactic is to troll until the other side gives up? Not even clever.

I have asked for physical evidence or logical proofs. Your answer was for what kinds of physical evidence or logical proofs. That is not my concern. You have your criteria. I have literally given you the whole of physical existence and mathematics to use in arguing your point of the existence of a creator, and you ask me to be more specific? Present ANYTHING that has been tested and verified that proves your creator. That is your task.

Until then, I will not respond. Grow up and present your case or get out.

 

[idav]

You have kindly pointed out the importance of establishing criteria before discussing a matter. The very issue I am trying to avoid is this urge to merely make statements and dodge the issue of evidence.

Showing evidence that matter or energy can be created would be a good start. Perhaps something that refutes the law of conservation of energy which states that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed".

You have an alternative to the law of conservation of energy?

 

[DunyaDawah]

So, your tactic is to troll until the other side gives up? Not even clever.

I have asked for physical evidence or logical proofs. Your answer was for what kinds of physical evidence or logical proofs. That is not my concern. You have your criteria. I have literally given you the whole of physical existence and mathematics to use in arguing your point of the existence of a creator, and you ask me to be more specific? Present ANYTHING that has been tested and verified that proves your creator. That is your task.

Until then, I will not respond. Grow up and present your case or get out.

As is commonly understood any conversation would start with the parties agreeing to the objective. Secondly I requested evidence not proof, because evidence leads to proof. I hope you understand the distinction. Since you have respectfully decided not to answer my questions, I will proceed anyway. Proof for the existence of the Creator is requested by you physically and logically.

My response is that the physical evidence for the Creator is the known universe including dark matter. My logically evidence for the existence of the Creator are the fundamental particles. There are many more issues which we can discuss mutually which will prove the existence of the Creator. I would now kindly request that you rebut the evidence on a scientific basis with peer review.

 

[DunyaDawah]

You have an alternative to the law of conservation of energy?

Funnily enough the rule is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I however would suggest energy once created can also be destroyed!!

 

[Storm]

As is commonly understood any conversation would start with the parties agreeing to the objective. Secondly I requested evidence not proof, because evidence leads to proof. I hope you understand the distinction. Since you have respectfully decided not to answer my questions, I will proceed anyway. Proof for the existence of the Creator is requested by you physically and logically.

My response is that the physical evidence for the Creator is the known universe including dark matter. My logically evidence for the existence of the Creator are the fundamental particles. There are many more issues which we can discuss mutually which will prove the existence of the Creator. I would now kindly request that you rebut the evidence on a scientific basis with peer review.

Why, exactly did you wait for him to leave the thread before replying? Is it because you know your "proof" is mere supposition?