Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Thief]

What would be unfair would be to base one's future after death on their beliefs held before they died. We, as humans, have no way of knowing what happens after death (at least for the time being). So, it is completely reasonable to lack belief in an afterlife but still prefer that one actually existed. Imho, we can't choose what we believe. Either something seems plausible, reasonable or sufficiently evidenced or it doesn't to us subjectively. So, it seems cruel to deny anyone an afterlife simply because it might make others feel uncomfortable or "unhappy" (can't understand why that would be an issue). If there is an afterlife, it shouldn't be denied merely because someone didn't believe that there would be one during their life.

if your opponent was willing to black your eye the first time....
turn the other cheek

and be prepared to duck....

and if such practice of approach was yours.......
the angelic might well do so unto you.

I believe in cause and effect.

 

[gnostic]

The watchmaker analogy is not wrong -we know certain things can't happen in our present environment without humans (or similar), but we do not understand the environment which preceded ours enough (or realize we do) to scientifically determine what could and could not happen without a "God". We may have the knowledge and data necessary, but are not looking at it correctly.

The Watchmaker analogy is a flawed 19th century analogy for God, because the analogy doesn't take into account a number of things:

1. The watchmaker is human: he is born, he sleeps, eats, craps, he may marry or not - and put up with mother-in-law who may hate his gut - he may or may not have children, he would pay taxes, and eventually he would die. All these would torpedo the notion of all-powerful immortal being.
2. He is certainly would not be the only watchmaker around (which defeats the notion of One-Watchmaker as being the same as One-God), and most likely he would have learn his trade from an older Watchmaker. Back then, when the analogy came up in the 19th century, a lot of the trades still went by as master having an apprentice (or even more than one).
   
3. So the apprentice watchmaker would have learned what he know from a master watchmaker (and that sort of defeats the notion of Watchmaker being all-knowing).
4. And what apprentice watchmaker learn, it is mechanical, not some magical or miraculous whoo-doo; there is nothing in supernatural. Which leads to another point...
5. Although, he make many of components himself, he rarely work with raw materials. Some he might make, but others he would buy or barter or trade for some of the items he needs to make the watch. One thing is for certain, watchmaker wouldn't mine for the raw materials.

And I can go on listing how the watchmaker is nothing like God.

The problem with the analogy is that it is both restrictive and too broad in scopes, that it fall to pieces, because you are comparing what God might do with what humans could or could not do.

 

[gnostic]

I believe in cause and effect.

You still don't understand that each cause-and-effect may not necessarily relate to science.

Nothing about God relate to science, because he is no more real than make-believe bogeyman or unicorn.

It would be sort of like with a child who loses her tooth, and that if she leave this tooth under her pillow, she would receive a quarter or dollar from the tooth fairy. The whole tooth and tooth fairy make-believe cause-and-effect, is like that of your God from the bible - make believe cause-and-effect. You tooting your own horn about cause-and-effect is not science cause-and-effect.

 

[Thief]

You still don't understand that each cause-and-effect may not necessarily relate to science.

Nothing about God relate to science, because he is no more real than make-believe bogeyman or unicorn.

It would be sort of like with a child who loses her tooth, and that if she leave this tooth under her pillow, she would receive a quarter or dollar from the tooth fairy. The whole tooth and tooth fairy make-believe cause-and-effect, is like that of your God from the bible - make believe cause-and-effect. You tooting your own horn about cause-and-effect is not science cause-and-effect.

your denial is noted.

I shall always hold as true....
Spirit first.
Someone had to be first.
substance as creation.
substance is cannot move of it's own volition.

God as Creator
the universe as creation.

 

[gnostic]

your denial is noted.

Your own denials of your ignorance and lack of honesty have been noted by many here.

You don't understand or don't want to understand that not all cause-and-effect are the same, and not all of them are related to science, like your claims.

With science, cause-and-effect involved verifiable evidences on both sides:

1. There needs to be evidences for CAUSE
2. and there needs to be evidences for EFFECT.

You can't have evidences for only one of them.

Since there are no verifiable evidences to support the existence of God, then it is not possible for God to be a creator of anything, let alone for everything.

And there are no evidences to support the existence of "spirit". Like God, the belief in spirit is nothing more than your make-believe delusion.

 

[outhouse]

your denial is noted.

That is correct everyone should deny those who use pseudoscience and imagination

 

[outhouse]

Someone had to be first.

Yes the first one to write mythology.

Your faith is meaningless in any debate

 

[outhouse]

I believe

So what?

that is not evidence for creation mythology

 

[Thief]

and the debate goes on

 

[Thief]

and for lack of proper rebuttal....I reiterate

your denial is noted.

I shall always hold as true....
Spirit first.
Someone had to be first.
substance as creation.
substance is cannot move of it's own volition.

God as Creator
the universe as creation.

 

[Etritonakin]

The Watchmaker analogy is a flawed 19th century analogy for God, because the analogy doesn't take into account a number of things:

1. The watchmaker is human: he is born, he sleeps, eats, craps, he may marry or not - and put up with mother-in-law who may hate his gut - he may or may not have children, he would pay taxes, and eventually he would die. All these would torpedo the notion of all-powerful immortal being.
2. He is certainly would not be the only watchmaker around (which defeats the notion of One-Watchmaker as being the same as One-God), and most likely he would have learn his trade from an older Watchmaker. Back then, when the analogy came up in the 19th century, a lot of the trades still went by as master having an apprentice (or even more than one).
   
3. So the apprentice watchmaker would have learned what he know from a master watchmaker (and that sort of defeats the notion of Watchmaker being all-knowing).
4. And what apprentice watchmaker learn, it is mechanical, not some magical or miraculous whoo-doo; there is nothing in supernatural. Which leads to another point...
5. Although, he make many of components himself, he rarely work with raw materials. Some he might make, but others he would buy or barter or trade for some of the items he needs to make the watch. One thing is for certain, watchmaker wouldn't mine for the raw materials.

And I can go on listing how the watchmaker is nothing like God.

The problem with the analogy is that it is both restrictive and too broad in scopes, that it fall to pieces, because you are comparing what God might do with what humans could or could not do.

Hmmm -I think I got mixed up somewhere. I'm not sure i even know what analogy we are talking about. I was thinking about a story I heard about a bunch of watch parts being shaken in a bag -never to become a watch thereby.

If I have time I will read over the other posts.

 

[outhouse]

and the debate goes on

There is no debate here at all.

Its just you refusing academic knowledge, you know denial of credible education in favor of faith That and your constant proselytizing of your personal faith with nothing substantiated a single word you speak

 

[Thief]

faith requires no proving....Webster's

but I see no one able to rebuttal....cause and effect

 

[McBell]

faith requires no proving....Webster's

but I see no one able to rebuttal....cause and effect

No one needs rebuttal your claim of cause and effect.
Why?
Because YOU toss your beloved cause and effect out the window once it gets you to your god.

So if you yourself toss it out, what need is there for a rebuttal?
Answer, none.
You removed the need for rebuttal when you toss it out the window.

 

[Thief]

No one needs rebuttal your claim of cause and effect.
Why?
Because YOU toss your beloved cause and effect out the window once it gets you to your god.

So if you yourself toss it out, what need is there for a rebuttal?
Answer, none.
You removed the need for rebuttal when you toss it out the window.

God is the Cause and the universe is the effect.
I have never let go of what I love

 

[McBell]

I have never let go of what I love

What caused god?

Whelp, there goes your beloved cause and effect....

Cue the denial

 

[leibowde84]

if your opponent was willing to black your eye the first time....
turn the other cheek

and be prepared to duck....

and if such practice of approach was yours.......
the angelic might well do so unto you.

I believe in cause and effect.

Can you explain what you mean here.

 

[leibowde84]

your denial is noted.

I shall always hold as true....
Spirit first.
Someone had to be first.
substance as creation.
substance is cannot move of it's own volition.

God as Creator
the universe as creation.

Substance doesn't have its own volition, but substance "moves" without conscious interference all the time. Gravity and is a perfect example of this.

 

[Thief]

Substance doesn't have its own volition, but substance "moves" without conscious interference all the time. Gravity and is a perfect example of this.

I send you back to the first singularity...
please remain there til you get it right

 

[Thief]

What caused god?

Whelp, there goes your beloved cause and effect....

Cue the denial

the hall of mirrors trick doesn't work on God