INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Thief]

I don't believe-in 'the singularity' anymore than I believe in gods.

Well...gee....

Kinda hard to discuss the beginning.....Genesis.....Origin.....

If you're not willing to look at what science has been pushing for decades.

 

[Agnostic75]

The evidence for Christianity has been strong enough to convince 1/3 of an ignorant population of it's merit, and 2/3 of a knowledgeable population of the same.

The probability that a religion is true is not determined, or verified, by how many people accept it. If Islam becomes larger than Christianity is, that would not have anything to do with whether or not Islam is true.

The vast majority of people who are the most knowledgeable about biology accept macro evolution, and in predominantly Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist countries, the vast majority of people who are familiar with Christianity rejected it.

An Internet website says:

"There are big churches, and then there’s the Yoido Full Gospel Church here in Seoul, South Korea. It’s the mother of megachurches, with the largest congregation in the world. On a typical day 200,000 will attend one of seven services along with another two or three hundred thousand watching them on TV in adjoining buildings or satellite branches. While some other churches may be losing members, this one just keeps growing. The main sanctuary here holds 21,000 worshipers packed to the rafters seven times every Sunday. Each service has its own orchestra, its own choir, its own pastor. There are hundreds of assistants. There need to be. Each service is translated into 16 different languages for visitors. Karen Kim is a pastor with the church’s international division. She says she was shocked when she first moved here from Australia."

South Korea is heavily evangelized, has the largest individual Christian church congregation in the world, and has excellent education, and media, but 70% of South Koreans are not Christians. The entire country is only about the size of Indiana, and transportation is excellent, so people interact with each other a lot, and people have easy access to Christianity through the media.

In my post 3449, I provided reasonable evidence that circumstance largely determines belief. I quoted where you said that circumstances are not to blame for which world view people choose, and that the human heart determines what people believe. I explained that that was just semantics, and that circumstance largely determines what the human heart chooses to believe. Quite obviously, there are many circumstances where people who became Christians would not have become Christians, and where sufficiently evangelized people who became skeptics would have become Christians.

 

[Agnostic75]

.......the entire theory of evolution alone is not only completely dependent on life arising on it's own but a universe from nothing and a thousand other problems that impair its validity.

Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist. Consider the following:

Kenneth R. Miller: Science And Religion: Incompatible?

Science is a revolutionary activity. It alters our view of nature, and often puts forward profoundly unsettling truths that threaten the status quo. As a result, time and time again, those who feel threatened by the scientific enterprise have tried to restrict, reject, or block the work of science. Sometimes, they have good reason to fear the fruits of science, unrestrained. To be sure, it was religious fervor that led Giordano Bruno to be burned at the stake for his scientific "heresies" in 1600. But we should also remember more recently that it was science, not religion, that gave us eugenics, the atomic bomb, and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments.

The deeper issue, the only one that really matters in this debate, is whether there is a genuine incompatibility between science and the concept of God. What science surely tells us is that the origins of our universe and the creatures within it are found in natural processes that can be observed and studied. In other words, that our own existence is woven into the very fabric of the natural world. Seen in this light, the human presence is not a mistake of nature or a random accident, but a direct consequence of the characteristics of our universe. To a theist, God is nothing less than the source of the profound rationality of nature. Naturally, a non-believer seeks another reason for that rationality. Yet despite these differences, both can embrace the systematic study of nature in the project we call science. That is the ultimate source of compatibility between science and religion. To be sure, there are and always will be conflicts between science and particular religious sects. But on a personal level -- and I will state this plainly -- it seems to me that any faith that might require the rejection of scientific reason is not a faith worth having.

Miller has it right, “both [religious people, and skeptics] can embrace the systematic study of nature in the project that we call science.”

The theory as it exists in textbooks or think tanks is not reality itself and does not have to depend on much of anything.

If all life forms are related, and species change into other species, which most experts believe, that is quite obviously reality since that is what happened.

Evolution attempts to explain what happened after life began, not why it began. There are lots of disagreements among biologists about how life began, but there are far fewer disagreements about macro evolution since most experts accept it.

The reality the theory is supposed to represent must necessarily depend on many things.

No, macro evolution can be studied without assuming that a God does, or does not exist. If macro evolution is probably true because of lots of scientific evidence, which most experts believe, that probability would obviously be the same regardless of whether or not a God exists.

It is also obvious that even if naturalists are wrong about naturalism, they can still be right about macro evolution.

I also made it very clear I was speaking of non-theistic evolution. I was careful about my words. To no effect (as usual) it seems. I cannot have a theory about what was found on the moon unless it is true we went here and that it exists.

That is false. If you do not object to theistic evolution, you would only have objected to naturalistic mechanisms for macro evolution, not to its occurrence, and you have objected to its occurrence at least several times in this thread. That is why you

said that it has a thousand other problems, meaning a thousand problems other than naturalism. You mentioned at least two Christian websites that object to the occurrence of macro evolution, not just to naturalistic mechanisms for it. That was months ago. You are now pretending that you do not object to theistic evolution since I have made an issue out of your lack of knowledge of biology, and by claiming that you do not object to theistic evolution, you hope to avoid showing that you do not know enough about biology to adequately discredit macro evolution. Even if you had a Ph.D. in biology, most experts would still disagree with you, and most laymen would still not know enough about biology to accept or reject macro evolution based upon their own personal knowledge of biology.

When I said that you object to theistic evolution, I meant the part of theistic evolution that accepts the occurrence of macro evolution.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution. If that many experts accepted creationism, you would definitely brag about that, and so would most other Christians. The same goes for the issues of homosexuality. All major medical organizations say that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. If all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children, you would definitely brag about that, and so would most other conservative Christians.

Regarding scientific issues, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts pending further research, especially when the consensus consists of the vast majority of skeptic experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

It is important to note that of the relative handful of creationist experts, a good percentage of them also accept the global flood theory, and/or the young earth theory, so their scientific objectivity is questionable.

You cannot have a theory about something if the necessary precursor did not occur.

Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," so from your perspective, he had a necessary precursor for his theory.

Since macro evolution only addresses how life changed, not how life began, it does not need a precursor. If in fact macro evolution is true, it would obviously be true regardless of whether or not a God exists. Even if naturalists are wrong about the existence of God, according to most experts, including the majority of Christian experts, macro evolution is probably true, in which case the creation story in the book of Genesis is not literally true as understood by tens of millions of American Christians who reject macro evolution.

Although you now claim that you only object to naturalistic macro evolution, if there were not any atheists or agnostics in the world, and Buddhists had come up with macro evolution, you would still object to it since it questions what tens of millions of American conservative Christians believe about the creation of humans.

Even if a God exists, life could have been brought to earth by aliens. If that was the case, the existence of the aliens might need a precursor, but the existence of life on earth would not need a precursor other than the aliens. If there were not any atheists or agnostics in the world, and Buddhists had come up with that alien theory, you would still object to it since it questions what tens of millions of American conservative Christians believe about the creation of humans.

Most experts say that a global flood did not occur. A localized flood might have occurred, but not for the reasons that the Bible gives. Why was the flood story written? What actually happened?

Please reply to my posts 3447, 3448, 3449, and 3450.

 

[1robin]

Humans invented science.

They certainly invented a lot of theoretical science but I think in general it is more accurate to say humans discovered science.

 

[metis]

Most experts say that a global flood did not occur. A localized flood might have occurred, but not for the reasons that the Bible gives. Why was the flood story written?

Israel was not prone to flooding, but Babylon was, and it is from here that the narrative likely was derived. What we did is what all societies do, namely take a story and rework it to suit our own ends.

Therefore, the importance of the Genesis account is not that it's supposedly history, but that it contains within it values and morals which we hold dear. Whether the supposed events literally happened or not really is quite irrelevant today, but the values and morals certainly are relevant to us.

 

[1robin]

The probability that a religion is true is not determined, or verified, by how many people accept it. If Islam becomes larger than Christianity is, that would not have anything to do with whether or not Islam is true.

That is probably why I never equated them. My claims concern a sufficiency of evidence not accuracy of conclusion. I must have mentioned this a dozen times so far.

The vast majority of people who are the most knowledgeable about biology accept macro evolution, and in predominantly Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist countries, the vast majority of people who are familiar with Christianity rejected it.

No if my numbers are useless on what basis are yours useful? You might as well say 3/4ths of people believe statistics are meaningless.

An Internet website says:

"There are big churches, and then there’s the Yoido Full Gospel Church here in Seoul, South Korea. It’s the mother of megachurches, with the largest congregation in the world. On a typical day 200,000 will attend one of seven services along with another two or three hundred thousand watching them on TV in adjoining buildings or satellite branches. While some other churches may be losing members, this one just keeps growing. The main sanctuary here holds 21,000 worshipers packed to the rafters seven times every Sunday. Each service has its own orchestra, its own choir, its own pastor. There are hundreds of assistants. There need to be. Each service is translated into 16 different languages for visitors. Karen Kim is a pastor with the church’s international division. She says she was shocked when she first moved here from Australia."

South Korea is heavily evangelized, has the largest individual Christian church congregation in the world, and has excellent education, and media, but 70% of South Koreans are not Christians. The entire country is only about the size of Indiana, and transportation is excellent, so people interact with each other a lot, and people have easy access to Christianity through the media.

In my post 3449, I provided reasonable evidence that circumstance largely determines belief. I quoted where you said that circumstances are not to blame for which world view people choose, and that the human heart determines what people believe. I explained that that was just semantics, and that circumstance largely determines what the human heart chooses to believe. Quite obviously, there are many circumstances where people who became Christians would not have become Christians, and where sufficiently evangelized people who became skeptics would have become Christians.

That is one strange claim. Any country with a big church in it is overwhelmingly evangelized.

If your going to reject any numbers for any purpose I use them and then use numbers for any purpose you wish to I am not going to engage in a quantified debate. Which is it, do numbers matter or not?

 

[1robin]

Ken Miller, Ph.D., biology, is a Christian, and a theistic evolutionist. Consider the following:

Kenneth R. Miller: Science And Religion: Incompatible?



Miller has it right, “both [religious people, and skeptics] can embrace the systematic study of nature in the project that we call science.”

I have never met a Christian that would have any problem with this.

If all life forms are related, and species change into other species, which most experts believe, that is quite obviously reality since that is what happened.

That is quite the circular argument. X is true because it has always been true. In fact it is not even circular, it is simply a dot.

Evolution attempts to explain what happened after life began, not why it began. There are lots of disagreements among biologists about how life began, but there are far fewer disagreements about macro evolution since most experts accept it.

Is it impossible for you to separate what a theory suggests with what the reality it portends to describe requires?

No, macro evolution can be studied without assuming that a God does, or does not exist. If macro evolution is probably true because of lots of scientific evidence, which most experts believe, that probability would obviously be the same regardless of whether or not a God exists.

That is like saying we have not established whether alien life exists or not but we are currently investigating it for murder. However that is not what I was talking about. Theories should always represent reality. They are meaningless unless they. The reality of non-theistic evolution requires abiogenesis. IOW if could prove abiogenesis was impossible instead of just having no example and being against traditional principles then it would not be defendable.

Your using tactics not argumentation here. I have already agreed evolution occurs. Its relevance in a theological debate is it's relevance to God. That is where the requirements of reality come in.

It is also obvious that even if naturalists are wrong about naturalism, they can still be right about macro evolution.

They could be but where it fits into reality would need adjustment. Evolution without God requires abiogenesis. Evolution with God is not relevant to my position. I have to go for now. I will try and get to the rest later.

 

[Agnostic75]

Evolution with God is not relevant to my position.

You used to oppose macro evolution, and I can provide some examples of where you did.

I have already agreed evolution occurs.

You have never agreed that macro evolution occurs. You have said that all of it has problems, and that it has a thousand problems other than naturalism. All that you have done is admit that variations within species occur, and that has never been as issue since virtually all creationists admit that.

.......macro evolution can be studied without assuming that a God does, or does not exist. If macro evolution is probably true because of lots of scientific evidence, which most experts believe, that probability would obviously be the same regardless of whether or not a God exists.

That is like saying we have not established whether alien life exists or not but we are currently investigating it for murder. However that is not what I was talking about. Theories should always represent reality. The reality of non-theistic evolution requires abiogenesis. IOW if could prove abiogenesis was impossible instead of just having no example and being against traditional principles then it would not be defendable.

On the contrary, all that the study of macro evolution requires is following the scientific method. Ken Miller agrees with me, and he is a noted Christian expert. Surely many other Christian experts agree with Miler that “both [religious people, and skeptics] can embrace the systematic study of nature in the project that we call science.”

Consider the following:

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.

The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.

While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution."

The validity of that significant scientific research does not depend upon whether or not a God exists. What I mean is that if that evidence reasonably proves that all life forms are related, and that species become new species, the probability of the research being true would not depend upon whether or not a God exists. It would only depend upon whether or not the evidence form various fields reasonably prove that macro evolution is true.

You have created an obvious straw man argument. Macro evolution only studies the "occurrence" of macro evolution. It does not study the "mechanisms" that influence it. By bringing up naturalism, you are questioning the "mechanisms" that influence macro evolution. If scientists made claims about the "mechanisms" that influence macro evolution, you would be right, but they don't.

What we are talking about is physical actions. Macro evolution is physical actions. A chicken crossing a road is a physical action that can be empirically observed, and reasonably proven without needing to know where the chicken came from. Most experts agree with Wikipedia that "the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data" mostly from "paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy."

Do you have any evidence that there is not sufficient direct, and implied physical evidence from paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy that macro evolution occurs? Do you know enough about macro evolution to claim that all of it has problems, and that it has a thousand problems other than naturalism?

I assume that the vast majority of Christian theistic evolutionist experts, or all of them would agree with my arguments, and of course, all of the skeptic experts would agree with my arguments. I doubt that you could find any Christian theistic evolutionist experts who would agree with you, and I assume that even some conservative Christian creationist experts would agree with me that there is not any need to assume whether or not a God exists in order to study the validity of the "occurrence" of macro evolution, and that the existence of God would only be an issue if scientists made claims about the "mechanisms" that influence macro evolution, which of course they don't.

Since I am an agnostic, I am not arguing against the existence of any God, only the Gods of world religions. I will agree for the sake of argument that an unknown God exists. My only reason for defending macro evolution was to try to discredit the literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve as believed by tens of millions of conservative Christians who reject macro evolution. So, for my purposes, it is reasonable for me to appeal to a consensus of experts who support macro evolution.

Although you now claim that you only object to naturalistic macro evolution, if there were not any atheists or agnostics in the world, and Buddhists had come up with macro evolution, you would still probably object to it since it questions what tens of millions of American conservative Christians believe about the creation of humans.

Even if a God exists, life could have been brought to earth by aliens, and an unknown God might have created the aliens. If there were not any atheists or agnostics in the world, and Buddhists had come up with that alien theory, you would still probably object to it since it questions what tens of millions of American conservative Christians believe about the creation of humans.

 

[Agnostic75]

The evidence for Christianity has been strong enough to convince 1/3 of an ignorant population of it's merit, and 2/3 of a knowledgeable population of the same.

Your statistics area misleading. The vast majority of people who are the most knowledgeable about biology accept macro evolution, and in predominantly Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist countries, the vast majority of people who are familiar with Christianity rejected it.

The probability that a religion is true is not determined, or verified, by how many people accept it. If Islam becomes larger than Christianity is, that would not have anything to do with whether or not Islam is true.

That is probably why I never equated them. My claims concern a sufficiency of evidence not accuracy of conclusion. I must have mentioned this a dozen times so far.

What sufficiency of evidence? If you are partly referring to biblical textual criticism, that is far too vast a field for you to be proficient in. You would not even be able to pass a first year theology exam at an accredited college. Lots of experts on both sides who have forgotten more about the Bible than you and I will ever know have debated for years, and have not gotten anywhere. I am not going to waste my time buying and reading dozens and dozens of books, and end up getting nowhere years later. I have already watched a bunch of people do that over several years at another website. There are ways to sufficiently discredit Christianity without discussing biblical textual criticism, but I am making an exception regarding the Tyre prophecy since it is not difficult to adequately refute.

No if my numbers are useless on what basis are yours useful? You might as well say 3/4ths of people believe statistics are meaningless.

There is a big difference between appealing to a consensus regarding experts in science, which, for example Judge Jones did at the Dover trial, and appealing to a large number of Christian laymen regarding choosing a world view.

An Internet website says:

"There are big churches, and then there’s the Yoido Full Gospel Church here in Seoul, South Korea. It’s the mother of megachurches, with the largest congregation in the world. On a typical day 200,000 will attend one of seven services along with another two or three hundred thousand watching them on TV in adjoining buildings or satellite branches. While some other churches may be losing members, this one just keeps growing. The main sanctuary here holds 21,000 worshipers packed to the rafters seven times every Sunday. Each service has its own orchestra, its own choir, its own pastor. There are hundreds of assistants. There need to be. Each service is translated into 16 different languages for visitors. Karen Kim is a pastor with the church’s international division. She says she was shocked when she first moved here from Australia."

South Korea is heavily evangelized, has the largest individual Christian church congregation in the world, and has excellent education, and media, but 70% of South Koreans are not Christians. The entire country is only about the size of Indiana, and transportation is excellent, so people interact with each other a lot, and people have easy access to Christianity through the media.

As you know, my premise is that circumstances largely determine what people believe, and that many skeptics who have been sufficiently evangelized would have become Christians under different circumstances, and deserve to have eternal life. You should have known that I did not need to use any particular country to adequately support my premise.

In my post 3449, I provided reasonable evidence that circumstance largely determines belief. I quoted where you said that circumstances are not to blame for which world view people choose, and that the human heart determines what people believe. I explained that that was just semantics, and that circumstance largely determines what the human heart chooses to believe. Quite obviously, there are many circumstances where people who became Christians would not have become Christians, and where sufficiently evangelized people who became skeptics would have become Christians.

That is one strange claim. Any country with a big church in it is overwhelmingly evangelized.

South Korea is only about the size of Indiana, so people come into contact with each other quite a lot. It has excellent education, media, and transportation, all of which help to spread information about Christianity. It has the largest single Christian church congregation in the world. About 30% of South Koreans are Christians.

Wikipedia says:

South Korea currently provides the world's second largest number of Christian missionaries, surpassed by the United States.

"Korea has 16,000 missionaries working overseas, second only to the US".

Seoul contains 11 of the world's 12 largest Christian congregations. A number of South Korean Christians, including David Yonggi Cho, senior pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church, have attained worldwide prominence.

So it is reasonable to say that a large percentage of South Korean skeptics have been sufficiently evangelized, and that many of them would have become Christians under different circumstances, and deserve to have eternal life. I discussed this issue in more detail in my post 3449.

If your going to reject any numbers for any purpose I use them and then use numbers for any purpose you wish to I am not going to engage in a quantified debate. Which is it, do numbers matter or not?

You said:

That is probably why I never equated them. My claims concern a sufficiency of evidence not accuracy of conclusion.

If you do not care about numbers, why did you mention them? You have made an issue in this thread about the total number of Christians that are in the world. You need to make up your own mind whether or not you care about numbers. In this thread, you said:

"Since millions living where to be Christian risked death and still they believed this is not an excuse and not relevant."

You sure love to use numbers.

As I said:

"There is a big difference between appealing to a consensus regarding experts in science, which, for example Judge Jones did at the Dover trial, and appealing to a large number of Christian laymen regarding choosing a world view."

Since it is widely accepted by both skeptics, and Christians to appeal to a consensus regarding science, I will continue to do so when I want to. If 90% of the people in the world were agnostics, I would not make an issue out of that in debates, but I do make an issue out of a consensus of scientists when I want to.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution. If that many experts accepted creationism, you would definitely brag about that, and so would most other conservative Christians. The same goes for the issue of homosexuality. All major medical organizations say that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. If all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children, you would definitely brag about that, and so would most other conservative Christians.

Regarding scientific issues, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts pending further research, especially when the consensus consists of the vast majority of skeptic experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, and 3450.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: The following is from another thread, with some minor changes regarding my replies.

You are wasting your time since an evil God can predict the future just as easily as a good God can. When I first used that argument in another thread, you made the nonsensical claim that God has provided Christians with ways to tell good supernatural beings from evil ones, but it is quite obvious that if an evil God inspired the Bible, he inspired the Scriptures that say that Christians can tell good supernatural beings from evil ones.

No an evil God cannot even be God.

An evil God cannot be the God of the Bible, but that is exactly my point, which is that God is not the kind of God that the Bible claims he is.

Logically, any eternal being who has creative abilities would qualify as a God regardless of his nature.

No logic indicates that all possible Gods must be good.

No God is a being with maximal great making properties. Evil is not a great making property.

What are great making properties? What can a good God do that an evil God cannot do? If an evil God is omnipotent, he quite naturally would be able to do anything that he wanted to do. For example, he could heal sick people, and predict the future, or do anything else that he wanted to do. He would have a different character than a good God would, but mere humans would not be able to know that.

There is a debate (a rare one) where Craig and another Christians took on two atheists at Oxford I believe. In the question period someone asked if Satan could not simply be God but evil. Craig said evil is not a great making property and the whole place laughed themselves silly. BTW that is one of the few debates where votes were taken. The Christians won by a lot. This is also an irrelevant subject. Demons and Satan are created creatures and do not possess great making properties which means they cannot predict the future accurately at 100%. Which is why palm reader, people talking to the dead, and false prophets always have errors among anything they get right.

Craig is wrong. Consider the following:

Perfect Being Theology | Reasonable Faith

I’ve already acknowledged a degree of play in the notion of a great-making property. For example, is it greater to be timeless or omnitemporal? The answer is not clear. But our uncertainty as to what properties the greatest conceivable being must have does nothing to invalidate the definition of “God” as “the greatest conceivable being.” Here Anselm’s intuition which you mention seems on target: there cannot by definition be anything greater than God.

Now you might think, “But what good is it defining God as the greatest conceivable being if we have no idea what such a being would be like?” The answer to that question will depend on what project you’re engaged in. If you’re doing systematic theology, then you have that other control, namely, Scripture, which supplies considerable information about God, for example, that He is eternal, almighty, good, personal, and so on. Perfect Being theology will aid in the formulation of a doctrine of God by construing those attributes in as great a way as possible. On the other hand, if your project is natural theology, which makes no appeal to Scripture, then you will present arguments that God must have certain properties.

Nothing there, or elsewhere in the article, reasonably disproves my arguments. All that is required for my arguments to be true is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and evil. Obviously, an evil God who is omnipotent, and omniscient, would easily be able to pretend to be good, to predict the future, and to do good works.

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but if God is evil, he deceived Paul, and no mere human would be able to outwit an omnipotent, omniscient, evil God.

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?

 

[cottage]

Well...gee....

Kinda hard to discuss the beginning.....Genesis.....Origin.....

If you're not willing to look at what science has been pushing for decades.

With respect it's kinda hard to discuss anything with you because you never present proper arguments, just one or two-line exclamations or retorts interspersed with a row of dots.

If you would care to make a proper case for something then I'll be more than happy to give you my response.

 

[Thief]

With respect it's kinda hard to discuss anything with you because you never present proper arguments, just one or two-line exclamations or retorts interspersed with a row of dots.

If you would care to make a proper case for something then I'll be more than happy to give you my response.

All you really need is to follow the simple outline of the argument and then retort.
You have already made denial of belief in what science calls the singularity.

If you can't begin....in the beginning..... the dots will never connect!

 

[cottage]

All you really need is to follow the simple outline of the argument and then retort.
You have already made denial of belief in what science calls the singularity.

If you can't begin....in the beginning..... the dots will never connect!

Okay. Let's review what we've had so far.

You replied a post of mine like this: "Shall we do the cause and effect routine.....again?" (Whatever that is supposed to mean?)

I said: "Okay. Your move"

You said:
"Science would have you believe in the singularity......do you?"

I replied:
"I don't believe-in 'the singularity' anymore than I believe in gods."

You said:
"Well...gee....

Kinda hard to discuss the beginning.....Genesis.....Origin.....

If you're not willing to look at what science has been pushing for decades."
(Completely misunderstanding the answer you've been given, i.e. I don't believe-in the sigularity, but I believe-that the hypothesis is possible and credible)

I replied:
With respect it's kinda hard to discuss anything with you because you never present proper arguments, just one or two-line exclamations or retorts interspersed with a row of dots.

If you would care to make a proper case for something then I'll be more than happy to give you my response.

To which you said:
All you really need is to follow the simple outline of the argument and then retort.
"You have already made denial of belief in what science calls the singularity.

If you can't begin....in the beginning..... the dots will never connect!"

So now I'm saying to you: WHAT ARGUMENT?


Instead of speaking in riddles, why not just lay out the case you want to make? And I'll respond by return.

 

[Thief]

Okay. Let's review what we've had so far.

You replied a post of mine like this: "Shall we do the cause and effect routine.....again?" (Whatever that is supposed to mean?)

I said: "Okay. Your move"

You said:
"Science would have you believe in the singularity......do you?"

I replied:
"I don't believe-in 'the singularity' anymore than I believe in gods."

You said:
"Well...gee....

Kinda hard to discuss the beginning.....Genesis.....Origin.....

If you're not willing to look at what science has been pushing for decades."
(Completely misunderstanding the answer you've been given, i.e. I don't believe-in the sigularity, but I believe-that the hypothesis is possible and credible)

I replied:
With respect it's kinda hard to discuss anything with you because you never present proper arguments, just one or two-line exclamations or retorts interspersed with a row of dots.

If you would care to make a proper case for something then I'll be more than happy to give you my response.

To which you said:
All you really need is to follow the simple outline of the argument and then retort.
"You have already made denial of belief in what science calls the singularity.

If you can't begin....in the beginning..... the dots will never connect!"

So now I'm saying to you: WHAT ARGUMENT?


Instead of speaking in riddles, why not just lay out the case you want to make? And I'll respond by return.

From all of this....I gather you're not interested in terms of reality....
It's all good as long you never face a moment of 'conviction'?

If science cannot be used as a pivot....what then?
If I must drag you to each point of certainty....nothing will be certain.

 

[cottage]

From all of this....I gather you're not interested in terms of reality....
It's all good as long you never face a moment of 'conviction'?

If science cannot be used as a pivot....what then?
If I must drag you to each point of certainty....nothing will be certain.

Nothing is certain in any case. Science and induction is the very means by which we explain reality, perhaps the only means.

But again I have to guess what it is you’re attempting to say, and while I don’t wish to sound discourteous I have to tell you that’s the reason I don’t normally reply to your posts

 

[Thief]

Nothing is certain in any case. Science and induction is the very means by which we explain reality, perhaps the only means.

But again I have to guess what it is you’re attempting to say, and while I don’t wish to sound discourteous I have to tell you that’s the reason I don’t normally reply to your posts

Science will insist on certain notions.
Nothing moves without something to move it.

Let's begin with that singularity.

What brought it to motion?

 

[Ouroboros]

Science will insist on certain notions.
Nothing moves without something to move it.

What is moving Earth in orbit around our Sun?

A natural force.

Let's begin with that singularity.

What brought it to motion?

A natural force.

 

[Thief]

What is moving Earth in orbit around our Sun?

A natural force.


A natural force.

Let's get it right.
Think singularity.
Think inertia......a body at rest will remain that way

Think Spirit first.

 

[Ouroboros]

Let's get it right.
Think singularity.
Think inertia......a body at rest will remain that way

Think Spirit first.

What moved the Spirit?

A spirit in rest will remain in rest.

Think All Things as One. There is no "first" nor "last". All is in constant, infinite, eternal motion. Matter, substance, spirit, all of it. The Alpha and Omega is the Ouroboros. Things in eternal motion never rests.