Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Skwim]

The burden of proof does not belong with man but with God.

But you're the one making the claim, so the burden is yours.

Has to be a better answer than blind chance hasn't it?

Why? And not if blind chance is the better alternative. To accept god as the reason I'd have to buy into whole lot of faith based religious shenanigans, all of which involve compromising reason.

 

[McBell]

The burden of proof does not belong with man but with God. You are using a worldly argument. It depends on YOUR heart. Whatcha got?

Has to be a better answer than blind chance hasn't it?

Interesting.
Blind chance is yet another option that proves your false dichotomy.

So there is four MORE than the two you presented....

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That does little to answer my point, if that was what you were attempting to do. You have shown one way of using "supernatural" - that is all.

No I have revealed that the term supernatural, as you use it, as we have all used it to describe things, is largely useless in the cosmological argument. I think this needs to be understood before we make silly arguments about where "nature" came from. Let's use better terms and more meaningful concepts.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Who says that God is everything? Is that just your belief? Because, if we are going to continue, I need a limited definition of God that doesn't encompass everything. Short of that, it is too vague of a concept.

You explain to me what the rest is then if not God. Where does he go for it? Down the shop marked "Everything that has nothing to do with God".
Presumably that is where he got the universe from ; and probably marked down looking at the state of this one. It's falling to bits already

 

[Robert.Evans]

Interesting.
Blind chance is yet another option that proves your false dichotomy.

So there is four MORE than the two you presented....

Still waiting for your simple answers. Worked out the keyboard yet have you?

 

[Robert.Evans]

No I have revealed that the term supernatural, as you use it, as we have all used it to describe things, is largely useless in the cosmological argument. I think this needs to be understood before we make silly arguments about where "nature" came from. Let's use better terms and more meaningful concepts.

Ok, I'm all for more meaningful conversations. Where then does "nature" and "natural" come from then?

 

[McBell]

Still waiting for your simple answers. Worked out the keyboard yet have you?

I have already told you I have dumbed them down as far I can.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But you're the one making the claim, so the burden is yours.


Why? And not if blind chance is the better alternative. To accept god as the reason I'd have to buy into whole lot of faith based religious shenanigans, all of which involve compromising reason.

The burden is not mine. I have given arguments. You fail to hear them. I cannotopen your ears. That is between you and Him.

How can blind chance be a better answer than intelligence for the formation of any form of complexity? That is a stupid thing to say.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I have already told you I have dumbed them down as far I can.

Well type them one more time for little old me, eh, cause I must have missed them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Presumably that is where he got the universe from ; and probably marked down looking at the state of this one. It's falling to bits already

That's because God is an absentee landlord. Somebody should have told him: "A universe isn't just for Christmas!"

 

[leibowde84]

You explain to me what the rest is then if not God. Where does he go for it? Down the shop marked "Everything that has nothing to do with God".
Presumably that is where he got the universe from ; and probably marked down looking at the state of this one. It's falling to bits already

What on earth does this mean? God created the universe. God couldn't have created himself, as that is completely counter-intuitive.

 

[Skwim]

The burden is not mine. I have given arguments. You fail to hear them.

Well, I certainly failed to see any such arguments as to why the burden isn't yours. You do understand, don't you, that mere assertion does not constitute an argument?

How can blind chance be a better answer than intelligence for the formation of any form of complexity?

First of all, because no such intelligence has been shown to exist, only faith based claims that it does, which ain't at all convincing. Secondly, because complexity has been seen to beget further complexity, the development of the eye for example.

That is a stupid thing to say.

Now, now, let's not be attacking the messenger just because you don't like the message. Play nicely.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ok, I'm all for more meaningful conversations. Where then does "nature" and "natural" come from then?

Nature refers to everything we can observe. Discussion about the big bang and the origin of the universe is a useful conversation. However right now the total amount of verifiable answers are a thin zero. We know that some cosmic event roughly 13.8 billion years ago was significant to the current form of our universe. What happened prior, if there was anything prior, is a mystery.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

more garbage from you.
You really should present your definition of the word fact given your usage of it indicate you do not know what the word means.

The word fact means to make a model of what the fact is about. If a witness comes to the police, and the police asks for the facts about what happened, basically this means to make a model of what happened. Fact then uses a logic of cause and effect, a logic of being forced.

This is why fact cannot apply to agency of a decision, because agency of a decision is free per definition. To say it is a fact what the agency of a decision is, means to say choosing has the logic of being forced. The logic of facts, which is cause and effect, is attributed to the logic of choosing, which results in a contradiction, and the concept of choosing ceases to function.

We cannot model what love is, or hate, we can only express what love and hate are, expressing with free will, thus choosing. The brain is therefore not choosing, but it is organized for choosing, and is decided over by agency, the existence of which is a matter of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you saying that evolution is wrong? There is no way one can go against modern science, it is backed up too well. God evolves my friend, he is not static. He lives and breathes, grows, develops; we are evidence of that, from birth to death. He replicates his own thoughts for us to see, and which in turn our us.

You are so weak, you know as fact that freedom is real. Don't you think freedom would be relevant to the way the universe works? Freedom is only like tossing salad in the universe, tossing the atoms and electrons about? You have departed from common sense, and are neglecting freedom.

 

[McBell]

The word fact means to make a model of what the fact is about. If a witness comes to the police, and the police asks for the facts about what happened, basically this means to make a model of what happened. Fact then uses a logic of cause and effect, a logic of being forced.

This is why fact cannot apply to agency of a decision, because agency of a decision is free per definition. To say it is a fact what the agency of a decision is, means to say choosing has the logic of being forced. The logic of facts, which is cause and effect, is attributed to the logic of choosing, which results in a contradiction, and the concept of choosing ceases to function.

We cannot model what love is, or hate, we can only express what love and hate are, expressing with free will, thus choosing. The brain is therefore not choosing, but it is organized for choosing, and is decided over by agency, the existence of which is a matter of opinion.

More garbage.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

More garbage.

You've got nothing. Even your words you take from me.

 

[McBell]

You've got nothing. Even your words you take from me.

Your words are the best to describe your posts.
Nothing but garbage.
At least the lies have stopped.
So there is some progress.

 

[dust1n]

Was just skimming through... anyone give out that evidence yet?

 

[Thief]

Perhaps you should go back and read the thread?
You have no verifiable evidence for your beliefs or creation.
In fact, you reject the very thought you even need any.

And I did notice you avoided the question.

oh how the years have flown by.....and you still cry for proof......
all the while knowing....
you can't have any