Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[sojourner]

A belief that has no evidence is simply faith based.

That's simply not true. As I showed, belief can be based in faith. It can also be based in skepticism.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Athiesm assumes that non existence of God is the default position until evidence is provided

You're never going to get it. Why not?, the thread wonders. They're speculating about whether this is an intellectual or moral issue.

It is not for me to say if someone cannot understand something or not IMO

Sure it is, if it's clear that they don't understand. You've been told just that repeatedly - that you don't understand - and have yet to acknowledge that you have. I find that odd. You don't deny the claim, you don't attempt to rebut it, you don't ask for clarification - you just ignore the comments.

Well that is what a "christian" is by definition

There are multiple definitions of Christian. I gave you mine, which is anybody who calls himself a Christian, the one census and poll takers use. They don't grill you on your doctrine to see if you are a "true Christian" true to the faith. They ask you your religion, and if you say Christian, or Protestant, or Baptist, they just tick off a box.You're a Christian if you say so.

Now I can elaborate on what Christians tend to believe, but those things aren't relevant to me or most other unbelievers, and so don't appear in my definition, The Jehovah's Witnesses seem to like to disqualify most of Christianity from Christianity based on doctrinal differences, and many Protestants will tell you that Catholics aren't Christian based on doctrinal differences, but as I said, those distinctions don't matter to most non-Christians just as you probably don't care about doctrinal disputes between competing forms of Islam, and wouldn't care if a Shia told you that Sunnis are heretics, and not Muslim. Yeah they are, if they say they are.

Questioner: "Subduction Zone, do you believe in God and the existence of God?"

Subduction Zone: "Nope." I do not believe in God and I do not believe in the existence of God.

Questioner: So if you do not believe in God where is your evidence?

Subduction Zone: I have none

Questioner: So if you have no evidence for your belief than your belief is based on faith?

Subduction Zone: Humm Nope I did not say that

Questioner: Here are your own words here XXXXX

Subduction Zone: Hmmmm ??? Well I made a mistake

Unfortunately, the mistake is yours.

You might want to consider whether there might possibly be any validity to the claim that there are two statements that are distinctly different to just about everybody else except you, who has never articulated one of the two to confirm that he has ever understood what it means.

This many voices in unison is evidence. Consilience is the convergence of evidence. When the evidence coming from multiple independent sources is in agreement, that should become significant. If three different people at a party separately tell you that you are too intoxicated to drive home, you should at least consider that they might be right.

I think you forget or you do not know what you believe as you keep changing or disclaiming what you say you believe or do not believe

I disagree. @Subduction Zone has been consistent. He has said what every agnostic atheist has said, that although he has no way of knowing that there is no god, he has insufficient evidence to believe that one exists, and therefore doesn't, which you keep changing to him saying that there is no god.or God.

Indeed but you claim there is no God and God does not exist. That is your faith for which you have no evidence.

Except that he doesn't make that claim, and needs no evidence to support his agnostic unbelief.

You seem to be confused about what atheist and agnostic mean notwithstanding your multiple dictionary definitions. You use the words as if they are mutually exclusive categories, that is, if a person is either, he can't also be the other. There is no logical reason why a person can't be both an unbeliever (atheist) and unwilling to say that gods do not (or do) exist (agnostic atheist)

Even though I disagree with you it is nice to talk with you and thanks for sharing your view.

Thanks. Likewise.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We'll all be laughing, even though we shouldn't when you and the low brow internet atheists get it. It'll be like drinking coffee and then spitting it out due to normal reaction.

You've just reached the third phase of religious proselytizing.

Phase one is the flawed arguments - in your case Kalam, Pascal's wager, and the ontological argument, but just as common are the arguments against science involving assorted false claims such as the one about macroevolution, or that there is no evidence for human evolution.

In phase two, we see the frustration rising as these arguments are rebutted and rejected. Here's where we see attempts to disqualify and invalidate criticisms of scripture with reasons for why we can't understand it, or we are reminded that we can't disprove gods, or we are told that we live by faith and have a religion, or that we don't know what an atheist is but they do, or the proselytizer claims to have proven something with words that nobody considered a proof, or we are told that we are fighting God, or trying to avoid accountability, or hate Christians. This phase is characterized by a lot of LOLs and ROFLs, but the laughing is about to end.

And then we get to phase three, anger and the threats. The Chick tracts are perfect for that.

where is your cosmological argument

For what? Atheism? The atheist needs no argument to reject god claims and holy books.

We found from Kalam that if God does not exist, then the universe does not exist.

No, we didn't. You never established that p implied q, so you never established its contrapositive, either. .

I asked you to come up with a logical argument for atheist cosmology, but you haven't.

There is no atheist cosmology.

I present valid arguments

Not according to your critics here.

Furthermore, when they are rebutted, you are silent, which is a tacit concession. It's the same reasoning used to give the win to the team that showed up when the other one didn't, or to give the verdict to the prosecution in a courtroom trial where the prosecution makes a case and there is no defense. Neither of these is a tie.

Your Kalam argument was defeated. You didn't even try to defend it.

All you are doing is making assertions KCA is invalid

No, a proper refutation has been provided more than once now. You ignored it. That issue has been settled.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So many Christian's take delight in the suffering of others.

I have a nice file of quotations on that topic. I call it Jeers In Heaven:

• "In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned ... So that they may be urged the more to praise God ... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens ... to the damned" - Thomas Aquinas

Apparently, the Christian god and the angels will be rejoicing at the suffering of souls in hell:

• "The door of mercy will be shut and all bowels of compassion denied, by God, who will laugh at their destruction; by angels and saints, who will rejoice when they see the vengeance' by their fellow-suffer the devil and the damned rejoicing over their misery." - Bishop Newcomb

Delighting in the suffering of others is part of the happiness of heaven:

• This display of the divine character will be most entertaining to all who love God, will give them the highest and most ineffable pleasure. Should the fire of this eternal punishment cease, it would in a great measure obscure the light of heaven, and put an end to a great part of the happiness and glory of the blessed." - Samuel Hopkins

Happiness in heaven will in large part depend on seeing others suffer.

• "Non-Christians often ask the Christian, "But how can the God of love allow any of his creatures to suffer unending misery?" The question is, how can he not? The fact that God is love makes hell necessary." - Christian Theology in Plain Language, p. 219

That's what a god of love does - causes suffering. Strange conception of love.

• "The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardor of the love and gratitude of the saints of heaven ... The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever ... Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell ... I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss." - Jonathan Edwards

Isn't that a nice sentiment, letting you know how happy torture will make you as well once you have gone to heaven:

• "At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause." - Tertullian

Not just happy, but laughing out loud at the suffering of the damned. Does this include infants?

• "Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell, in the tongs of his wrath, till they turn and spit venom in his face!" - Jonathan Edwards

Reprobate infants. LOL. But what about your own children? This one from the Catholic Truth Society is as beautiful as a mother's love for her child:

• "What will it be like for a mother in heaven who sees her son burning in hell? She will glorify the justice of God." - Catholic Truth Society

One might ask just how all of these people in heaven laughing at the suffering of strangers, former friends, and even former loved ones that didn't make it would make them or their god any different different from Satan and the demons below, who presumably will be laughing along with them. Good question.

Of course he understands. But hes far too invested in error to back out now so he will just wear you out and claim victory

I'm not so sure that he understands. He seems like a decent person to me, so I tend to think that this is a cognitive issue (a type of blindness), and not a moral one (lying, covering up). This may be due to a faith-based confirmation bias that doesn't permit certain ideas into the head.

Once somebody has accepted a notion on faith, a filter called a faith-based confirmation bias can form that allows in only that which seems to support the faith-based idea, in this case, that his theism is no less valid than atheism, since both are faith-based. He has a stake in believing that, so perhaps that is all that he can see. No contradictory evidence gets through.

As counterintuitive as this may seem, there is an excellent description of this phenomenon from geologist and former young earth creationist (YEC) Glenn Morton, now an old earth creationist (OEC), of his own experience encased in such a confirmation bias. He anthropomorphizes the experience by equating it to a demon like Maxwell's demon, one which sits at the portal to his mind and decides what will enter and what will not. This is from Morton:

"When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data.

"The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view ... one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data."​

I find Morton sincere and credible. If he says that he was blind to this process, as counterintuitive as that claim may seem - really? You literally couldn't see it? - I believe him.

And this is how I now view most religious apologists telling me that they see no evidence for biological evolution, for example, or that everything they see - the universe itself and all of its contents - is evidence of a god to them. They see what their faith tells them is true. And I suspect that is what is happening here.

If Morton is right, these people are not lying. That is what they see.

Recently, I answered a comment of yours regarding the value of participating in these forums, and one point I mentioned was the value in studying the spectrum of faith-based thinking. Where else are you going to see this? Where else can you tap the glass so-to-speak, to try to understand how this works, to see how impenetrable this wall is, and how completely it can dominate and deform thinking.

This activity is like an extended class, with both lab and lecture sections, the observing being the lab, and unbelievers sharing their knowledge and insights about it the lecture. This was the Morton's demon chapter.

 

[1213]

....
4. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct faith? Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God....

To me faith means loyalty to something.

It is true that many things are called gods. I think the other than Bible God are basically on same level as your left foot shoe. I just think it would not be reasonable and good to be loyal to your shoe. I want to be loyal to Bible God, because He and His teachings are good. This is why
I think the question should be, what would one be willing to keep as his God.

 

[james bond]

And then we get to phase three, anger and the threats. The Chick tracts are perfect for that.

What anger and threats? The end of the world and second coming of Jesus has been predicted since ancient times lol. The Chick tracts just provides the narrative art to easily show and explain the Bible's message.

2020 will be the year the Lucas museum of narrative art opens. Already, George Lucas has bought Robert Crumb's Genesis narrative art -- Comics A.M. | George Lucas' museum acquires Robert Crumb art. Crumb was going to make it a parody, but God made him do it straight.

Kalam has not been defeated. You atheists will just have to deal with it .

 

[james bond]

Cosmology is a branch of physics these days. And logic is something singularly lacking in much theology.

Cosmology is just philosophy. Besides the beginning isn't addressed by physics and it breaks the law of physics.

Thus, I pointed out the beginning of the big bang was similar to what was given to Darwin that life already existed. All Darwin did was take it, explain how evolution works (he was wrong haha), and wrote a book that made big bucks. If anyone can show the beginning of the big bang, then God does not exist. That would be a valid cosmological argument.

However, I also pointed out that the opposite is true. If not (not God exists) or God exists, then there was no beginning of big bang. This is what the creation scientists have discovered. Besides, there are more problems with the big bang.

This is false. We *know* of quantum events that are uncaused. Also, the proper statement is something along the lines of 'everything that has a cause has a physical cause'. In other words, all causes are within the universe.

Is this your science or religion, i.e. faith? Stephen Hawking died without being able to show. He admitted even a quantum particle needs space. I don't think he admitted it needed time, but the particle would need time in order to move.

I'll have to look over the rest of your post when I have more time.

 

[sojourner]

It is not me that does not know what I am saying or believe. Your the one doing all the back peddling

Or, better yet, you could accuse him of "back-pedaling."

 

[sojourner]

How would you know when you do not even know what it means?

But I know. And you are breaking it.

 

[sojourner]

Don't worry, I know the judge and he tells me you do not know what your talking about

Now you're claiming "special knowledge." Just sad.

 

[james bond]

There is no atheist cosmology.

That's what I said. The atheists have nothing. You admitted you have no cosmology. You have no evidence for no God. It's like AGW where one has to have faith to believe. You have no evidence for multiverses. You have no evidence for aliens (pangenesis). You have no evidence for abiogenesis. You have no evidence that we can colonize another planet and become multiplanetary. You have no evidence that Chicxulub was actually an asterioid or comet or something from space. You do not have real science. I only bring up some science because atheism is supposed to have science, but it's fake science.

However, modern atheism does have a cause. Do you know what that is?

Are you going to disappoint me and say you have no idea what that is?

 

[james bond]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God or deities. Nothing else. It doesn't say anything specific about cosmology, or metaphysics, or anything else.

I'm going to call you a liar on your last sentence. You believe in dark matter and dark energy which is suppose to be expanding the universe without much evidence. That's part of metaphysics. You also claimed infinite temperature and infinite density in a subatomic particle which cannot exist in the physical world. That's part of metaphysics. What about multiverses? That's metaphysics. What about abiogenesis? That, too.

Yes, I am stating that the KCA argument is invalid. The conclusion does NOT follow because the premises are not all true.

More assertions. You cannot logically refute KCA?

There is no atheist cosmology.

I addressed that in post #966.

This is also probably false, but it depends on exactly what you consider to be 'the universe'. For example, if our universe is part of a larger multiverse, we should apply the argument to the multiverse and not just our universe.

So, while our universe may not have existed for an infinite amount of time, it is possible that a multiverse has. In which case, your argument fails.

But, if there is no multiverse and the universe is not infinitely old, does *that* imply it had a beginning? I would say not.

Here's why: time is part of the universe. And 'to have a beginning' implies there is a *time* when it did not exist, and a later time in which it did. But, because time is part of the universe, the universe has existed whenever there was time. So it cannot have 'had a beginning'. More specifically, time cannot have had a beginning, even if it is finite.

Your multiverse is metaphysics. Moreover, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. What we established was the universe had a beginning. Thus, there was a cause. There is no evidence for a multiverse. No cause.

Got contradiction? I think you just claimed from above that the multiverse was the cause. Now, I am beginning to think you do not have much logic to your explanations here.

Anyway, the rest of what you claim is based on atheist faith. Not even logical.

Well, this would follow if the previous two steps were valid, but the evidence we have shows them not to be. Even basic logic shows them not to be.

But we can go further. Even if everything within the universe has a cause, that doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause, even if it has a beginning. For example, there is nothing said in this about the possibility of multiple causes for different aspects of the universe. Or multiple causes for the universe as a whole. In fact, most events within the universe have multiple causes, so why assume that the universe only has one?

All of us know the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. We also discovered the universe had a beginning. Thus, there was a cause. Things just do not pop into existence from a void, but this is what Hawking was trying to show. He failed. Thus, he and the secular physicists decided to use metaphysics and created the multiverse and infinite one at that. However, you and your atheist scientists have no evidence whatsoever for it. Again, it's evidence of atheist faith.

If you want to show me something can just pop into existence from invisible particles, then make me an In-N-Out burger, fries, and shake right now from nothing. It has never happened let alone an universe haha.

As for your last paragraph, you admit one has to have a cause. I'm not sure why you are saying multiple causes. Multiple gods? What is your evidence for that? I have the discovery of the Bible and in it we have one witness to it all -- God. We also have validation of what is in the book; it has withstood the test of time.

Even Darwin's book explaining ToE was a best seller at one time, but has faded into non-existence, i.e. forgotten.

Once again, a very faulty premise, which essentially assumes the conclusion. Why must the cause be God? Why must it be an intelligent being? Why not an uncaused quantum event? Why not a committee of higher dimensional beings? Why not a collision in the multiverse that produced our universe with no intelligence involved?

So, even if the universe has a cause (unlikely because of the above), the identification of that cause, or even showing there is only *one* cause, is problematic.

Well, I don't feel the need to go further. The KCA fails at every major step.

Like I said, atheists are usually wrong. The KCA has been solid logic from the very first statement. You are the one who failed at each step instead as I pointed out.

Again, there can be no uncaused quantum event as this has never happened. Logic says it did not or else we can just have our lunch pop into existence. The evidence says it did not. Your atheist physicists had to go to their metaphysical multiverses because even they would not say something this stupid haha.

Just read my previous posts and you'll see that the cause is God because of the Bible or God's autobiography. He was the sole witness. Otherwise, I would be just as guilty as you making up a bunch of hooey to fit a cosmological argument.

At least, both you and @It Aint Necessarily So admitted the atheists have no cosmological argument. That means the creationists here won with KCA and what I proposed with the logic.

In atheist's terms: If the big bang did have a beginning, then there is no God. Also, it means, if there is a God, then there is no beginning to big bang.

I think I've demonstrated using logic that: If there is a God, there is no beginning to the big bang.



.

 

[Polymath257]

Cosmology is just philosophy. Besides the beginning isn't addressed by physics and it breaks the law of physics.

No, it really doesn't. And no, cosmology is NOT metaphysics. It is straight out physics. We have actual data that we collect and attempt to understand by making mathematical models.

Thus, I pointed out the beginning of the big bang was similar to what was given to Darwin that life already existed. All Darwin did was take it, explain how evolution works (he was wrong haha), and wrote a book that made big bucks. If anyone can show the beginning of the big bang, then God does not exist. That would be a valid cosmological argument.

Sorry, but the Big Bang theory and Darwinian evolution have NOTHING to do with each other. And, where Darwin was wrong, later scientists have corrected him. The basic ideas are correct, however.

And how would the Big Bang show that God does not exist? In fact, it says nothing either way about deities.

However, I also pointed out that the opposite is true. If not (not God exists) or God exists, then there was no beginning of big bang. This is what the creation scientists have discovered. Besides, there are more problems with the big bang.

You have made the claim (repeatedly), but have not substantiated that claim.

And what problems do you think there are with the basic Big Bang scenario?

Is this your science or religion, i.e. faith? Stephen Hawking died without being able to show. He admitted even a quantum particle needs space. I don't think he admitted it needed time, but the particle would need time in order to move.

Faith has nothing to do with it. Reason is the core principle. And what Hawking or any other scientists did NOT manage to discover is pretty irrelevant for the truths we *have* discovered.

 

[Polymath257]

That's what I said. The atheists have nothing. You admitted you have no cosmology. You have no evidence for no God. It's like AGW where one has to have faith to believe. You have no evidence for multiverses. You have no evidence for aliens (pangenesis). You have no evidence for abiogenesis. You have no evidence that we can colonize another planet and become multiplanetary. You have no evidence that Chicxulub was actually an asterioid or comet or something from space. You do not have real science. I only bring up some science because atheism is supposed to have science, but it's fake science.

However, modern atheism does have a cause. Do you know what that is?

Are you going to disappoint me and say you have no idea what that is?

Actually, AGW, abiogeneis, and Chicxulub have a great deal of evidence for them.

Multiverses are a proposal and, I agree, have no evidentiary basis as yet. The notion is, at this point, purely theoretical.

And I agree, we have no evidence of life elsewhere in the universe, although the commonality of the basic building blocks of life makes it seem likely that there is.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm going to call you a liar on your last sentence. You believe in dark matter and dark energy which is suppose to be expanding the universe without much evidence. That's part of metaphysics. You also claimed infinite temperature and infinite density in a subatomic particle which cannot exist in the physical world. That's part of metaphysics. What about multiverses? That's metaphysics. What about abiogenesis? That, too.

Nope. Dark matter and dark energy are physics, not metaphysics. Dark matter, at least, has a LOT of evidence supporting it.

Even in the standard Big Bang model, there is no time when the temperature is infinite. At all times the temperature is finite. Remember that the singularity does not actually exist: it is a description of what happens as we get to the earliest times.

Multiverses are a combination of physics and metaphysics, at this point, but the math puts them slightly over the edge to physics.

Abiogenesis is biology (or biochemistry) and is also not metaphysics.

Mabe you need to learn what the word 'metaphysics' actually means?

More assertions. You cannot logically refute KCA?

See post #943

I addressed that in post #966.

Which I refuted in post #968

Your multiverse is metaphysics. Moreover, the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. What we established was the universe had a beginning. Thus, there was a cause. There is no evidence for a multiverse. No cause.

When did you establish that the universe had a beginning? And when did you establish that it had a cause?

Got contradiction? I think you just claimed from above that the multiverse was the cause. Now, I am beginning to think you do not have much logic to your explanations here.

The multiverse is one *possibility*. We do not know if the universe had a cause or not. If there *is* a multiverse, then it may have. But in that case, the multiverse did not have a cause.

Either way, there is something that did not have a cause: either the universe or the multiverse.

Anyway, the rest of what you claim is based on atheist faith. Not even logical.

On the contrary, I am pointing out *some* of the logical possibilities that you ignored.

All of us know the universe, Earth, and everything in it is here. We also discovered the universe had a beginning. Thus, there was a cause. Things just do not pop into existence from a void, but this is what Hawking was trying to show. He failed. Thus, he and the secular physicists decided to use metaphysics and created the multiverse and infinite one at that. However, you and your atheist scientists have no evidence whatsoever for it. Again, it's evidence of atheist faith.

You are repeating yourself. We did NOT discover a beginning.

If you want to show me something can just pop into existence from invisible particles, then make me an In-N-Out burger, fries, and shake right now from nothing. It has never happened let alone an universe haha.

Well, the burger is macroscopic, not a quantum event. And we *have* demonstrated the uncaused aspects of quantum events.

As for your last paragraph, you admit one has to have a cause. I'm not sure why you are saying multiple causes. Multiple gods? What is your evidence for that? I have the discovery of the Bible and in it we have one witness to it all -- God. We also have validation of what is in the book; it has withstood the test of time.

No, I am showing that even if I admit a cause, there is no reason to assume only *one* cause. No, I am not saying multiple Gods. I am saying multiple *causes*. You are the one claiming any cause has to be God without proof.

Even Darwin's book explaining ToE was a best seller at one time, but has faded into non-existence, i.e. forgotten.

Huh? It is hardly forgotten. It has been surpassed by more modern research, but so has Newton's Principia.

Like I said, atheists are usually wrong. The KCA has been solid logic from the very first statement. You are the one who failed at each step instead as I pointed out.

Again, there can be no uncaused quantum event as this has never happened.

Wrong. pretty much *every* quantum event is uncaused.

Logic says it did not or else we can just have our lunch pop into existence. The evidence says it did not. Your atheist physicists had to go to their metaphysical multiverses because even they would not say something this stupid haha.

Logic says no such thing.

Just read my previous posts and you'll see that the cause is God because of the Bible or God's autobiography. He was the sole witness. Otherwise, I would be just as guilty as you making up a bunch of hooey to fit a cosmological argument.

You have established none of this: only made claims of such.

At least, both you and @It Aint Necessarily So admitted the atheists have no cosmological argument. That means the creationists here won with KCA and what I proposed with the logic.

Why does one have to have a cosmological argument? The KCA has failed miserably. All other proposed proofs for the existence of a God have also failed. That is reason enough to be an atheist.

In atheist's terms: If the big bang did have a beginning, then there is no God. Also, it means, if there is a God, then there is no beginning to big bang.

Neither statement is true.

I think I've demonstrated using logic that: If there is a God, there is no beginning to the big bang.

Wow. You certainly have NOT shown that. It is quite possible that there was no singularity and time goes infinitely far into the past. That can happen even without a multiverse. In that case there would be no cause and no beginning. It says nothing about a God either way.[/QUOTE]

 

[james bond]

Why does one have to have a cosmological argument?

Too much wrongness to rebut and correct as you presented nothing solid to go by or even think about. I think your explanation was multiverses. No links. Nothing to think about as we close this debate.

You admitted you do not have any cosmology. It means, according to your definition of cosmology, you have no physics backing you up while the creation scientists and I do. Not only that we have the Bible as well as the scientific evidence to back it up.

Big bang could not have created itself and Hawking was wrong:
Hawking claims negative energy in his posthumous 2018 book (too ridiculous to excerpt and sounds like circular reasoning)
Is there a God? - creation.com

Figure 1: The first several hundred million years after the big bang is when the universe was in its Dark Ages. No ionized hydrogen meant that no sources of light were available during that period.

Alan Guth claims to have theory of inflation to explain the cosmology
Dark beginning - creation.com

The multiple reasons why big bang fails as objective science
One of them is no space and time which I addressed
"The big bang is supposed to have begun by means of a quantum fluctuation. But what was it that quantum fluctuated? And how could this have happened before there was any time or space for anything to quantum-fluctuate in?"

Missing antimatter
"Energy can be converted into matter according to Einstein’s equation E=mc², but when this happens exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter are produced. So where are the 200 billion galaxies of antimatter that had to form to balance the 200 billion galaxies of stars, for the big bang theory to ‘work’?"

and much more here:
Can Christians add the big bang to the Bible? - creation.com

Thus, I leave you with something to think about as you really don't have anything except multiverse physics whatever that is. At least, Hawking and Guth had something else to roll our eyes over.

 

[3rdAngel]

3rdAngel said: ↑ Not necessarily. As posted earlier elsewhere in that same post, the Christian know they cannot conclusively prove God through external evidence and admits to living by faith. However they do so knowing that they have the evidence of personal experience and the collective witness to the revelation of God. Athiesm on the other hand denies the belief in God or the existence in God yet it also has no evidence therefore hold simply to a belief that is also faith based but in the opposite direction. As posted earlier insufficient evidence is not a basis for something to be true or not true it is only insufficient evidence that cannot determine what truth is.

Your response...

Right. And at what point does the lack of evidence become sufficient to conclude non-existence?

It doesn't. Insufficient evidence is not a basis for something to be true or not true it is only insufficient evidence that cannot determine what truth is.

So, for example, we probably agree that pink unicorns do not exist. Why? Because there is no evidence that they do. Is it possible we missed something? Of course! Maybe, just maybe, there is a distant planet on which pink unicorns play all day. But if I had to place a bet, my bet would be that there isn't. And again, is this lack of belief in unicorns based on faith or on reason? I hope you will agree it is NOT faith based, but reason based. So, what is the reason? Well, pink unicorns would be large animals and, even if rare, would be fairly easy to spot. We know that people like to tell stories about them, elaborating to make the story nicer for the kids. And we realize after a certain age that, along with Santa Claus, pink unicorns are a myth--a story we tell ourselves to make life more interesting.

This is repetition here. This has been dealt with already in post # 669. But that said the key thing is that we know that the origin of the invisible pink unicorn is simply fictitious and made up from someones imagination with no claim to being real. No one has seen one and not one claims to existense, therefore we put it into the ridiculous category concerning belief and non existent.

As posted earlier elsewhere in that same post, the Christian know they cannot conclusively prove God through external evidence and admits to living by faith. However they do so knowing that they have the evidence of personal experience and the collective witness to the revelation of God. Athiesm on the other hand denies the belief in God or the existence in God yet it also has no evidence therefore hold simply to a belief that is also faith based but in the opposite direction. As posted earlier insufficient evidence is not a basis for something to be true or not true it is only insufficient evidence that cannot determine what truth is.

Now we turn to the issue of Gods. I'll stick to the Abrahamic God since that seems to be the only one you recognize. The only 'evidence' for this is based on a book that was clearly written for its propaganda value. We have many 'personal experiences', but all are preceded by psychological techniques that we *know* can lead to false perceptions. The main value is in the stories that are used to give meaning to life. One difference is that people don't tend to grow out of believing in this myth, but get really upset when others point out it is a myth not too different than many other myths of deities from around the world.

Nonsense. Your denying personal experience and a personal revelation of God which is a part of the Chrsitian experience and the collective witness of those who have had that experience all through time to this very present day which now constitutes up to 1/3 of the worlds population claiming the same thing which is evidence in and of itself. All you have provided here is your opinion that you cannot prove as you have no evidence to support your claims IMO.

Truthfully, except that people don't tend to grow out of God belief because it is deep in our society, I don't see much difference. So it seems to me to be reasonable to disbelieve in God in exactly the same way and to the same extent I disbelieve in unicorns. Either way, I could be wrong, but the evidence simply isn't enough to support belief.

I would disagree here. People lose their faith in God everyday and depart theor belief. If your honest you should know this as there are many on this board that will tell you that is their personal experience. People also that do not believe in God also change their views and move from unbelief and athiesm to follow God also. So what we are talking about here moves in both direction. I use to not believe in God and also use to mock Christian as not living by evidence but by blind faith, until I found God and realised I was also simply living by faith that God did not exist. All your doing is showing by your very own arguments that you do not believe in God and you do not believe God exists but your unable to prove your claims that God does not exist or can you prove your claims to someone's personal experience and that fact these experiences are world-wide experienced in every generation since the beginning of time. which means your living by faith. I have beed where you are until I found God has always been here all the time but I have closed my mind not to see him.

 

[3rdAngel]

Given what you just presented, his lack of belief is NOT based on faith, but on the lack of evidence. And that lack of belief is the reasonable position based on the lack of evidence, so it is NOT based on faith.

Nonsense. He does not believe in God or in the existence of God quoting his own words elsewhere. A belief indeed for which there is no evidence. Therefore if no evidence it is a faith based belief that he cannot prove. The same way those who believe in athiesm cannot prove there is no God

 

[3rdAngel]

I asked you before if you understood the difference between "I don't believe x is true" and "I believe x is false".
You said you did and remember what I replied to that? I said "you say yes, but your posts show otherwise".

And here we are again, with a post of yours that says otherwise...

The quotes you are referring to from @Subduction Zone are saying that he doesn't believe god exists.

And yet there you are, claim that he claims / believes that god does NOT exist.

So really, there are only two options here:

1. You are being incredibly dishonest and breaking the 9th commandment

or

2. You STILL don't understand the difference between the statements "I don't believe X" and "I believe X is false".


So which of these two is it?

The post I have provided from @Subduction Zone says he does not believe in God and he does not believe that God exists. You posted this.........

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑ That's quite an accusation. Surely you can back it up. So please, link to where @Subduction Zone supposedly makes this claim? Let's first establish that he did make that claim, because I suspect you of once again breaking the 9th commandment ;-)

I posted you the linked evidence to post # 931 linked. That show word for word what @Subduction Zone said. They are his words verbatim in context to the discussion and conversation as shown in the questions asked of him connected to the answers he provided. Then when asked about it again he denied he ever made those that he did not believe in God or the existence of God and started accusing me of lying. The only reason I posted the above evidence is to show I was not lying. Now all your doing here is trying to justify or find a loophole for your friends comments when there is none. He said what he said. You cannot deny it as I have posted him word for word and provided the links as evidence for verification.

Simply trying to justify lying only makes you a partaker of it IMO.

 

[3rdAngel]

And nowhere did I make the claim "God does not exist" .

We are not talking about your claims. We are talking about what you said and what you believe. I guess when one does not believe in God or the existence of God, the ninth commandment does not mean much

Subduction Zone said: ↑ Right I do not believe in God. Or god. Do you believe in Allah? I don't. Is there a burden of proof upon you to prove that Allah does not exist? You might get this right.

Subduction Zone said: ↑ I don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.