#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Does God exist?
Yes
Side Score: 102
|
 |
No
Side Score: 78
|
|
2
points
I have to agree, something can't exist without a creator. I personally don't believe in the Big Bang theory, because of the fact that "The theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point. This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion, and it is still expanding today." (BBC news) I wonder where those particles and matters came from in all honesty. SOMEONE please rebut me. Side: Yes
1
point
Let's say we never find out how the Universe actually originated; does this prove God's existence? The absence of knowledge shouldn't be a prompt to shove "God did it" in its place. This premise is its entirely own fallacy, the God of the Gaps. Back before we knew much of anything about our Universe, humanity kept shoving God's hand into the crevices they couldn't explain; from lightning to earthquakes to empty space. The origin of the Universe is no different. There are things in the Universe that just plain don't make sense to us right now; for instance, the idea behind a black hole is there is a singularity at its center, which compresses all finite amounts of matter into infinite density; which breaks the density principle that p=m/v. This goes completely against all known laws of physics and logic; is it your position that this is the work of God? "something can't exist without a creator". What is your proof or reasoning for this, if I may ask? Side: No
I'm not using a "God of the gaps" strategy. In fact, I think atheists tend to use a similar "science of the gaps" where they just shove "Oh ummm natural selection did this for several million years and therefore we have humans" but that's besides the point. Anyway, I know Catholics sometimes used to use "God of the gaps," but not me. As I stated, I'm arguing about science. As for the bit about black holes, I've never heard of black holes violating the laws of physics. I think that God created the universe and everything within it, and therefore yes, black holes are technically the work of God, but I also believe that everything in the universe is governed by laws of physics - except for God himself, since he created those laws. Side: Yes
1
point
"Science of the gaps" when it comes to evolution? I don't believe you fully understand what natural selection and evolution are. They are proven fact and is the reason homo sapiens are how they are today; refuting that isn't really an option, you can only deny science to a point. Also, your ignorance on black holes doesn't mean you can't do research on them. A simple search will show you that black holes contain a singularity which is a single point in space, despite taking in extreme amounts of matter, thereby condensing the density of that singularity to infinity, which violates laws of conservation of mass. An entity with infinite density should be seen to have infinite mass, which isn't the case with a black hole. Meaning a black hole singularity with 2 "units" of mass has the same density as a black hole singularity with 2 billion "units" of mass. Side: No
"I personally don't believe in the Big Bang theory, because of the fact that "The theory states that about 13.7 billion years ago all the matter in the Universe was concentrated into a single incredibly tiny point. This began to enlarge rapidly in a hot explosion, and it is still expanding today." (BBC news)" Why does that make you not believe in the big bang theory? (Remember that the big bang theory doesn't claim to know why the big bang happened, just that it did.) Side: Yes
This is exactly what we don't know... This is how I like to look at it: The answer to all our questions is 101. Scientific theory = 50 Scientific experiments proving these theories = 50 Scientists say that we have reached 100 and that we just need to find out the 1 Religious scripture = 0 (means nothing) Their belief = 0 (means nothing) A bunch of made up evidence that isn't coherent = 0 Religious people say that 0+0+0=101 and that they have worked everything out. Side: Yes
"How in the world do you get something from nothing without a God?" It is true that we can't yet confidently explain how we can get something from nothing without God. This does not mean that God is the correct explanation. Firstly, I don't think we can say for sure that we did get something from nothing in the first place. Even if we did, there is a difference between saying "God is the only explanation we have" and saying "God is the only explanation possible." Your reasoning assumes that we could never possibly explain the Big Bang without God, but I see no evidence that this is necessarily true. It was once thought that we could never explain lightning without a God. Your argument is similar to that and it is flawed for the same reason. Side: No
"This does not mean that God is the correct explanation." Of course it doesn't. But the theory of God answers the most questions in the best way, and therefore is the best theory. That's how science works. Ummmm why not? The Universe began, didn't it? And before that, there was nothing... soo..... When someone was like "ooh what is lightning? ... I dunno - must be God! Praise the Lord!" that was the "God of the Gaps" which is not what I'm using for the BB. In contrast, I come up with the theory of God after examining evidence and striking down the various possible theories (which, I can't help but notice, you have none of) by process of elimination Side: Yes
"Ummmm why not? The Universe began, didn't it? And before that, there was nothing... soo....." Because saying that the universe began doesn't necessarily make sense as there would have been no concept of time 'before,' not to mention, we don't know if there are other universes, or if there was 'always' something. The fact that we don't understand the physics is enough for me to say we aren't certain if there was something from nothing. "Of course it doesn't. But the theory of God answers the most questions in the best way, and therefore is the best theory. That's how science works." "When someone was like "ooh what is lightning? ... I dunno - must be God! Praise the Lord!" that was the "God of the Gaps" which is not what I'm using for the BB. In contrast, I come up with the theory of God after examining evidence and striking down the various possible theories (which, I can't help but notice, you have none of) by process of elimination" What evidence do you examine? What possible theories do you strike down? You don't need to name them all, just a few, as I'm not quite sure what you mean. The hypothesis of God doesn't answer most questions in the best way, as it has to make huge assumptions, and it raises new questions about God. It also needs supportive evidence. Side: No
I don't need to understand the physics, because enough credible sources have told that the science says we have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the Big Bang Theory is correct. The evidence I'm examining is the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. And under my theory, God created the time-space dimension along with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, He is not controlled by those Laws. "What evidence do you examine? What possible theories do you strike down? You don't need to name them all, just a few, as I'm not quite sure what you mean." I don't see any theories! That's the point! I haven't struck down any theories yet because there aren't any that don't work! Think of theories like wrestlers challenging each other in the octagon. If only one challenger steps up, and no one else challenges him, he won't lose! So someone needs to challenge my theory if you want to beat it. I'm waiting. Side: Yes
The big bang theory does not state that something came from nothing. "The evidence I'm examining is the First Law of Thermodynamics, which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. And under my theory, God created the time-space dimension along with the Laws of Thermodynamics. Therefore, He is not controlled by those Laws." http://www.physicscentral. The above reading may help to clarify some things. "So someone needs to challenge my theory if you want to beat it. I'm waiting." I don't have to beat it, I just have to show that it's not a good theory. Science isn't about who comes up with the first explanation, it's about the best explanation. I have told you why I think God isn't that. Side: No
Science isn't about who comes up with the first explanation, it's about the best explanation. Exactly. And I have the best theory - so far. I'm literally asking you to enter some opposition to my theory. I have told you why I think God isn't that The source you sent basically said "Well, we think that the Universe was just created by some weird, random, extra energy that happened to show up. To be honest, we don't know how the universe was created." I will admit one mistake - I said that MATTER cannot be created nor destroyed. I should have said energy. But still, before the Big Bang, there was no energy and there is now. Side: Yes
The source says: "You may be hesitant to believe that the total energy in the universe is constant because there appears to be so much of it, or because science seems to indicate that the universe is expanding. There are stars, planets, galaxies, globular clusters - everywhere, matter and energy seem to exist, and it's constantly rushing off in all directions. But for starters, the expansion of the universe doesn't have to take more energy - as the universe expands, the distances between stars or galaxies increases, and thus the gravitational energy between them decreases to compensate. And more importantly, thermodynamics doesn't state what value the total energy should have. It could be a huge, but constant, number (this is what's known as an "open" universe, where the amount of matter/energy in the universe exceeds a certain "cut-off" density: see http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/ Which answers your thing about energy. Side: No
It actually does not. The source says in that paragraph that the expansion of the universe just means that the energy is just being spread out, and that all that energy has been in the universe since the beginning. But here's the problem - that energy was created by the Big Bang, and the source doesn't explain how, except for talking about some kind of a "fluctuation," which isn't really an adequate explanation because it just means they don't know, and they're just saying "well something weird happened here and then you have a universe" Side: Yes
You don't know that the energy was created by the big bang. It is true that we don't know exactly why this energy exists, if it isn't totally equal to zero (which is a possibility), but The quantum 'fluctuation' ideas do offer some hope of an explanation in the future. Why don't you consider God to be a way of saying "well something weird happened here and then you have a universe?" Seems just as weird to me, even weirder in fact, as it hasn't been observed. Side: No
You don't know that the energy was created by the big bang Well we have energy, and it came from somewhere, so we call that beginning the Big Bang. Scientists established that the energy had a source, and then called that source The Big Bang. I already cited this source, but https://www.big-bang-theory.com/ says "Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning." It is true that we don't know exactly why this energy exists, if it isn't totally equal to zero (which is a possibility) If what is equal to zero? The energy level? There is energy in the universe and it's been here since the BB, because the BB created it. That's not something you can just deny. The quantum 'fluctuation' ideas do offer some hope of an explanation in the future. So you're saying "We don't know but we'll figure it out soon?" That is called arguing from ignorance, and it doesn't work in debates. Let's just say that in 50 years we will discover new evidence that proves how the universe was created. Until that happens, we have to find the best theory based on the facts we have right now and then stick with the resulting conclusion until more information comes into play. Why don't you consider God to be a way of saying "well something weird happened here and then you have a universe?" Because if God wills something to happen, it happens. In order for this debate to work, you cannot come into the argument assuming that God isn't real. You must examine the facts, and make logical deductions, wherever they lead, even if you're not happy with the resulting conclusion. This is the only option that explains the creation of the universe that I have seen which really works at all. it hasn't been observed You mean nobody has seen God? Well yeah, I didn't say they have. But you know what else hasn't been observed? The universe being created without a God, since nothing was alive yet!! That's why we have to use evidence and facts that we've collected today to figure out what created that data. Side: Yes
The total energy level in the universe could actually be equal to or less than zero, as my source mentioned. (There can exists negative energies, cancelling out positive energies) Energy is a confusing term in physics, to give you some idea of how it isn't just some innate property of something take this: Kinetic energy = 0.5mv^2 (half mass times the velocity squared (at speeds far below the speed of light)), but velocity is relative. From the reference frame of a stationary observer (on the sidewalk) the kinetic energy is higher than from the reference frame of another car driving alongside the first car. Energy is relative, which allows for the total energy in the universe to be zero. Some energies can be negative (not kinetic energy though, as far as I know) The Big Bang is just the name given to the initial expansion of the universe, it doesn't actually state that there was nothing 'before' that singularity, your source is misleading. The biggest problem with the using God as an explanation is that you then have to explain why he even existed in the first place, which is just as hard, if not harder to explain, as you cannot conduct any experiment or do any science to answer that question. Sometimes we just have to accept that we can't yet answer a question. It makes no sense to choose an explanation that we aren't at all sure about, like God. I still see no way in which your argument is different from the argument that lightning was caused by God(s) by people in older times. They probably said the exact same things you are saying. (Aside: The following isn't really an argument against God, just an interesting thing; the hypothesis of God has no predictive power, so it cannot be tested scientifically, which mean it can basically never be disproved.) Also, I'll stop arguing about the use of the word confidently but for the record I am confident that I used it correctly. Side: No
It is true that we can't yet confidently explain how we can get something from nothing without God. That’s not true scientists disagree on that This does not mean that God is the correct explanation. Yes Firstly, I don't think we can say for sure that we did get something from nothing in the first place. We cannot say we didn’t Side: Yes
I carefully used the word "confidently" to indicate that disagreement I'm sorry, but seriously? This is off track, but if you're "carefully" using the word "confidently," then (by the definition of "confidently"), you shouldn't be using the word "confidently." Side: No
"How in the world do you get something from nothing?" You don't. This is such a common argument that I feel I have to clarify, because this argument comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Big Bang is. Let's first talk about what the Big Bang isn't: 1. It isn't "something coming from nothing". The laws of conservation of energy show us that this is impossible. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be changed in form (Mandl, 1983). Thereby, all the energy that exists in the universe, has always existed, but crucially, it has always existed in some form or another. It is likely that we cannot currently understand its earliest forms due to a fundamental difference in universal property (Hawking, 1996). 2. The Big Bang isn't the beginning of "things", it's only the beginning of things in the sense that we currently know things. "Before" the big bang, the stuff (a scientific term, by the way) of the universe had different properties than the properties which it has now. For example, it has been hypothesized that at a certain level of density, matter and energy can actually take on the property of repulsive gravity, rather than attractive gravity (Guth, 1981). 3. The Big Bang isn’t the formation of all things, it is the shift of things into a spaciotemporal paradigm. This, interestingly, makes even the concept of “before” the big bang a misnomer. If time as we know it only came to exist with the Big Bang event, then to say “before the big bang” is to attempt to transplant the concept of time onto a paradigm in which time has no meaning (Hawking, 1996). Essentially, the big bang is a shift from the physical properties that existed pre-Big-Bang, into the physical properties that exist now, post-Big-Bang. It is not “something from nothing”. Bibliography Guth, A. H., 1981. Inflationary universe: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems. Physical Review D, , 23(2), pp. 347-356. Hawking, S., 1996. The Beginning of Time. [Online] Available at: http://www.hawking.org.uk/ [Accessed 19 05 2018]. Mandl, F., 1983. Statistical physics / F. Mandl. [Online] Available at: http://library.um.ac.id/free-contents/ [Accessed 19 5 2018]. Murphy, P. & Kim, C., 1988. Solution of the horizon and flatness problems by multiple inflations. Physical Review D, , 37(10), pp. 2732-2742. Side: No
1. So the energy is eternal? It's always been there? I think you're missing an important point here. The laws of physics and thermodynamics only affect things within the universe. So, any kind of violation of those laws implies a cause that is transcendent of this universe. I don't know what universal property means. 2. William Lane Craig, PhD, ThD, is a prominent member of the Design movement. He's contributed to several books, written for several scientific and philosophical journals, and he is a member of 9 professional societies - including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Forum, the American Scientific Affiliation, to name only a few. He explained that the idea of an "infinite past" is absurd: "Let's use an example involving marbles. Imagine I had an infinite number of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of marbles. In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself. However, another way to do it would be to give you all of the odd-numbered marbles. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you have an infinity too. You'd have just as many as I would - and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even! Or, another approach would be for me to give you all of the marbles numbered four and higher. That way, you would have an infinity of marbles, but I would have only three marbles left. What these illustrations demonstrate is that the notion of an actual infinite number of things leads to contradictory results. In the first case in which I gave you all the marbles, infinity minus infinity is zero; in the second case in which I gave you all the odd-numbered marbles, infinity minus infinity is infinity; and in the third case in which I gave you all the marbles numbered four and greater, infinity minus infinity is three. In each case, we have subtracted the identical number from the identical number, but we have come up with non-identical results. For that reason, mathematicians are forbidden from doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithmetic, because this would lead to contradictions. You see, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite qualities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However -- and here's the point -- it's not descriptive of what can happen in the real world. Substitute 'past events' for 'marbles,' and you can see the absurdities that would result. So the universe can't have an infinite number of events in its past: it must have had a beginning. In fact, we can go further. Even if you could have an actually infinite number of things, you couldn't form such a collection by adding one member after another. That's because no matter how many you add, you can always add one more before you get to infinity. This is sometimes called the Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite. But if the past really were infinite, then that would mean we have managed to traverse an infinite past to arrive at today. It would be as if someone had managed to count down all the negative numbers and to arrive at zero at the present moment. Such a task is intuitively nonsense. For that reason as well, we can conclude there must have been a beginning to the universe." Also, Craig says "theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity - or beginning - is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it" 3. As you say, the Big Bang was the beginning of Time, and there was nothing before it. This implies a First Cause that transcends the Universe. Side: Yes
.. any kind of violation of those laws implies a cause that is transcendent of this universe No, it doesn't. There is no violation of any law. There's a shift in universal property. If you don't know what that means, I would suggest you look it up. This is classic God of the Gaps fallacy. Let's use an example involving marbles. Imagine I had an infinite number of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of marbles. In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself. However, another way to do it would be to give you all of the odd-numbered marbles. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you have an infinity too. You'd have just as many as I would - and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even! William Lane Craig has a PhD in Theology. He's not a scientist. Judging by his arguments, definitely not a mathematician. And he has not been published in ANY peer reviewed scientific journals. All of his work is in theology. He is a lame duck source in a scientific debate. As you say, the Big Bang was the beginning of Time, and there was nothing before it. This implies a First Cause that transcends the Universe This is not what I said at all. Your ability to misrepresent, or your inability to comprehend, make this a strawman argument. Side: No
I Googled "shift in universal property" and it came up with some crap from a realtor. I scrolled down the results and it was all the same stuff. William Lane Craig has a PhD in Theology. He's not a scientist. Judging by his arguments, definitely not a mathematician. So what? He made a solid theological argument based on the concept of infinity... and you don't need to be a PhD in mathematics to follow his argument with the marbles. This is not what I said at all. Your ability to misrepresent, or your inability to comprehend, make this a strawman argument. Correction: I misunderstood geez. Just correct me instead of attacking me on a personal level. Let me correct myself - As you said, the Big Bang was the beginning of Time. Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that space and time are directly linked and you cannot have space or matter without Time. Are we still on the same page here in terms of how far I've gone with the BB? Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Prove me wrong. I am tired of doing all of the work for you atheists. The Bible and creation cannot just happen without God. I have some questions for you. How did you happen if there is no God? Can you orove evolution is true? Whgat caused the big bang? How to the planets align? How does a baby have his parts? How did the human geneome happen? Are you an atheist or an agnostiv? What is love made from, and more. To satisfy your need for proof: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/ Side: No
Dude! I'm with you here! I'm supporting your view. I also believe God is real!! The answer to all your questions about "how did all of this happen without God?" is that they didn't, because I agree that He exists! I was just asking that you provide concrete evidence that supports God in order to help me out. Also, I'd like to point out that citing Bible verses isn't really going to help, since people will just say stupid stuff like "You're just quoting fiction." Can we look at science that supports God please? Together? Also - there is no such thing as proving or disproving the existence of a God. You can't prove it or disprove it either way, but you can provide a staggering amount of evidence of evidence in favor of God. Side: Yes
2
points
1
point
|
Asks for facts ... cites subjective belief as justification. Nope. The structure of DNA and the scale of the cosmos say nothing about the probability of an abstract "supernatural" (as though such a thing exists), indefinable, unfalsifiable entity that was dreamed up a few millennia ago. As for your particular brand of entity: the Bible is filled with patently false nonsense, particular concerning the natural world. Saying "DNA is complex, thus God exists" is the equivalent of saying that because you don't understand how your Christmas presents got under the tree, that Santa must exist. This is why science and faith are incompatible. Faith begins at the point where a person decides to stop seeking fact. Side: No
DNA is not just complex - it contains information. If the entirety of Encyclopedia Britannica were to come down from space written in binary code, you would certainly take it as proof of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when something even more extraordinary happens in your cells, you call it natural selection. When they found the Rosetta Stone, they immediately assumed it was created by intelligence, not just random erosion. DNA is code, like computer code (also created by people), and atheism cannot account for that coming from naturalistic sources. Side: Yes
There is, quite literally, no way to determine whether something exists or not when it is not a physical being. If I was to tell you that there was a large invisible carrot orbiting the Earth, you would find it impossible to prove me wrong. What we can do, however, is prove various claims made in holy books wrong- thus ruining their validity. The Quran says that water does not mix with salt water (25.53) and we can prove this wrong, thus ruining the validity of this source. The bible says that the earth is flat (40.22) and we can prove this wrong, thus ruining its validity. To surmise, it is utterly impossible to disprove the existence of God but you can render whatever tells us that he exists useless. Side: No
There is, quite literally, no way to determine whether something exists or not when it is not a physical being. I've been very clear about this - I don't think you can definitively prove or disprove the existence of a God. If I was to tell you that there was a large invisible carrot orbiting the Earth, you would find it impossible to prove me wrong. Your point being? What we can do, however, is prove various claims made in holy books wrong- thus ruining their validity. Disproving a single statement of fact doesn't invalidate the entire book - in fact, it just shows the book was written by human beings, who make mistakes. The Quran says that water does not mix with salt water (25.53) and we can prove this wrong, thus ruining the validity of this source. 1. I'm Catholic - not Islam. 2. Actually, this verse is probably discussing the phenomenon where two bodies of water that touch each other and constantly exchange water have different temperatures, chemical compositions, salinities, etc etc The bible says that the earth is flat (40.22) and we can prove this wrong, thus ruining its validity. 1. It says that the earth is a "circle" which doesn't necessarily mean "flat." You could say that a circle is really a "three-dimensional circle." Of course, that's not a technically correct explanation, but then again the writers of the Gospel weren't exactly mathematicians - they were disciples and authors. 2. So what if these people were flat-earthers? The "round-earth" theory didn't really become a legitimate thing until the 6th century BC - and the book of Isaiah is from very early Old Testament. If every statement in the Bible and/or Quran were scientifically perfect, that would actually be evidence that the Church had altered them over the years. So if these are mistakes (which I think they might not be), those mistakes would actually further validate them as first-hand accounts. (Just as a side note, I think you should look words up before you use them. "Surmise" means to "suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it" according to the dictionary, which doesn't really fit in your sentence) Side: Yes
I have one daughter that is Catholic, one daughter that is Baptist. I have NOTHING against ANYONES religion as long as they don't try to control ME. In my 81 years I have looked for, and not found ANY evidence that ANY "god" exists. NOBODY actually KNOWS, but, I believe what I see or find enough evidence of. My only "god" is Mother Nature ... if I have one. I try to enjoy her. The Christian God/Islamic God/Jewish God, which are obviously all the same one, just different "rules" written by different MEN and passed off as "The Word of God" but is the level of "control" they wished to have over their followers. We will eventually find all (or most) of the answers to the universe, if we keep from destroying ourselves "in the name of "whichever GOD"". I just cannot accept these cruel "gods" many call "loving". It's not "love" I see around me from the major "god" of the world. When I see some, I might start to believe. If I could hold my breath for ANOTHER 20 centuries, or more, I might get a chance to see something believable. (So many gods, so little time.) ;-) Side: No
Have you tried looking at science to support the existence of a God? I haven't really seen any significant scientific evidence that God does exist... let's start with evolution. As far as I can tell, Darwinism is a total fabrication. For instance, have you ever heard of the Cambrian Explosion? It produced almost all of today's existing phyla in a ridiculously short amount of time, with no record of "transitional" species in between, which are required to support the theory of Darwinism. Of course, natural selection exists. All horses descend from only a few species of horse, for example, but I do not share a common ancestor with a bird and a gorilla and an elephant. Side: Yes
I, like YOU, "haven't really seen any scientific evidence that God does exist". And "as far as you can tell, Darwinism is a total fabrication." As far as MANY others can tell, it is quite undeniable. Is it "God" that turns the yoke and white of an egg into a bird? Or is it "Mother Nature"? Are the birds, insects, crustaceans ALSO "Gods creations"? Nothing to do with "nature"? I disagree with you, and we both have rights to an opinion. If I agreed with you, we'd likely both be wrong. Side: Yes
Provide evidence that Darwinism is even a reasonable theory. The fossil record shows us that the Cambrian Explosion produced a vast majority - if not all - of today's existing phyla in a period of time so short that Darwin's natural selection simply cannot account for. Is it God who turns the yolk and white of an egg into a bird? Again, God created the universe and everything within it, so yes. But that process of a bird being born IS governed by science, because God created science. Or is it "Mother Nature"? Nope. Ignore outlaw60 please he's just being an ass. Are the birds, insects, crustaceans ALSO "Gods creations"? Indeed they are Nothing to do with "nature"? On the contrary. The existence of every living thing was produced by natural processes set in place by Him. Side: Yes
First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed - only converted into other forms of energy. Same goes for matter As for what created God, you're asking the wrong question. Einstein's theory of relativity says that time is inextricably linked with matter and space. So if there is no matter or space (like before the BB), then there is no time. Therefore, under my theory, God created time along with matter and space, and therefore was not bound by the dimension of time that He created. I know it's confusing, and I'm actually having trouble wrapping my mind around it myself, but it's the best idea I can find to explain the BB. What can your atheism do for you on this one? Side: Yes
First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed - only converted into other forms of energy. Same goes for matter I’m asking you to prove that something cannot come from nothing As for what created God, you're asking the wrong question. There no such thing as a wrong question Einstein's theory of relativity says that time is inextricably linked with matter and space. So what ? So if there is no matter or space (like before the BB), then there is no time. What has this got to do with what created a god ? Therefore, under my theory, God created time along with matter and space, and therefore was not bound by the dimension of time that He created. Prove it ? I know it's confusing, and I'm actually having trouble wrapping my mind around it myself, but it's the best idea I can find to explain the BB. As in the old chestnut godidit What can your atheism do for you on this one? What Atheism got to do with it ? Side: No
I’m asking you to prove that something cannot come from nothing I mean I can't personally prove it with experiments or anything because I'm not a scientist and I don't have the resources or knowledge to do so, but The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is another way of stating the Law of Conservation of Energy, which says the same thing. The fact that energy cannot be created nor destroyed is an indisputable fact, but with the BB there was a singularity and ALL the energy in the universe was created within it. There no such thing as a wrong question Ok, let me rephrase - you're asking a question that cannot be answered because it doesn't even apply to the situation. What has this got to do with what created a god? Because if time is linked to matter and space, and God created matter and space, then he simultaneously created time. Yes, I know I said "if" but in order for this to work you have to first assume that God might exist and then follow along with the implications of that assumption. Prove it ? If God created the universe and space-time and the laws of physics, then that would mean his is separate from those constructions and is therefore not controlled by them. Assuming that God created the universe, that statement is true, okay? As in the old chestnut godidit I've never heard of a "chestnut godidit." I assume you made a spelling error but I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. What Atheism got to do with it ? Because I'm asking what theories you can offer that don't include the existence of a timeless God in its premise. Side: Yes
I mean I can't personally prove it with experiments or anything because I'm not a scientist and I don't have the resources or knowledge to do so, Right. So you cannot prove something cannot come from nothing but The First Law of Thermodynamics says that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, which is another way of stating the Law of Conservation of Energy, which says the same thing. Thought you said you cannot prove it ? The fact that energy cannot be created nor destroyed is an indisputable fact, but with the BB there was a singularity and ALL the energy in the universe was created within it. So now you’re saying something cannot come from nothing but yet you admitted you cannot prove it , that makes an end of your argument let me rephrase - you're asking a question that cannot be answered because it doesn't even apply to the situation. Nonsense Because if time is linked to matter and space, and God created matter and space, then he simultaneously created time. Mere speculation Yes, I know I said "if" but in order for this to work you have to first assume that God might exist and then follow along with the implications of that assumption. It doesn’t work for me it’s mere speculation again on your part If There you go with your if yet again God created the universe and space-time and the laws of physics, then that would mean his is separate from those constructions and is therefore not controlled by them. Assuming that God created the universe, that statement is true, okay? Why would I assume that ? I assume you made a spelling error but I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say. You assume wrongly , I’m saying you’re using the didit fallacy ( look it up ) to explain anything you don’t comprehend as in , if you have no explanation fo something well then godidit Because I'm asking what theories you can offer that don't include the existence of a timeless God in its premise. Atheism is a position on one question alone so what you’re asking makes no sense at all You say in your bio ..... "I'm Catholic but I'm only interested in debating science because they support that God exists Science does not support the existence of a god who told you that ? Side: No
So you cannot prove something cannot come from nothing That's literally what I just said. But I can show that other people have proved it. Are you trying to say that the energy is eternal and did not have a beginning? There was a beginning to the universe and all its energy, and since nothing existed before that, obviously something was created from nothing. Thought you said you cannot prove it ?" No, I didn't say that. I cannot prove the existence of a God. But the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy are definitive facts. Scientists are certain without a doubt that those Laws are true - that's what it means when the scientific community declares a Law you cannot prove it Ok look, when I say I can't "prove it," what I mean is I, a 16-year-old, cannot collect cosmological data and do the calculus and quantum mechanics necessary to find the expansion rate of the universe and then apply that to the BBT. Especially because scientists never say that they have "proved" anything because that's how science works. You don't "prove" stuff because they can only find patterns among their data that suggests a conclusion, but collecting ALL data that pertains to a certain topic is impossible. In essence, when I say that I can't "prove" that the Big Bang happened, I mean that I can still show data which leads the scientific community to believe without a doubt that it did. Nonsense It's not nonsense. The question "Who created the Creator?" doesn't apply to the debate because the Creator Himself is timeless and not bound by the laws of space-time. Mere speculation Ok look. Let's construct a hypothetical world where God exists and he created the Universe and everything within it, okay? Just humor me for a little bit. Please. So the God in our hypothetical world created space and matter right? (Just pretend He did.) Why would I assume that ? If you submit your own theory, I would do the same for your theory. It's like using guess-and-check to solve an algebra problem. You guess that x is 7, for example, and then plug it in assuming that it's true. So I'm guessing that God exists, and "plugging" that into the situation to see what happens and if the conditions evaluate as true. look it up Why should I do all the work to supply your argument? How about you tell me what the hell a didit fallacy is? How about we both look up information that supports our own arguments?? That's how a debate works. Science does not support the existence of a God When you enter into an investigation assuming stuff (like the absence of a God) then you can no longer trust any resulting conclusions. You must enter into debates and investigations and so forth assuming nothing Side: Yes
But I can show that other people have proved it. Really do tell as scientists today disagree with your assertions Are you trying to say that the energy is eternal and did not have a beginning? Where did I say that ? There was a beginning to the universe and all its energy, and since nothing existed before that, What about a multiverse? obviously something was created from nothing. So something did come from nothing ? No, I didn't say that. Ok , then please prove it ? I cannot prove the existence of a God I know . But the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy are definitive facts. So you keep saying , yet formation of the Universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy Scientists are certain without a doubt that those Laws are true And your point is as I’ve just corrected your assessment - that's what it means when the scientific community declares a Law Really ? It seems only when it suits you as you did say in a post you disputed Evolution yet science says Evolution is fact Ok look, when I say I can't "prove it," what I mean is I, a 16-year-old, cannot collect cosmological data and do the calculus and quantum mechanics necessary to find the expansion rate of the universe and then apply that to the BBT. Yes I know you cannot prove it Especially because scientists never say that they have "proved" anything because that's how science works. What are you talking about ? You don't "prove" stuff because they can only find patterns among their data that suggests a conclusion, but collecting ALL data that pertains to a certain topic is impossible. That again makes no sense in essence, when I say that I can't "prove" that the Big Bang happened, I mean that I can still show data which leads the scientific community to believe without a doubt that it did. I never mentioned or argued for a Big Bang ?? . The question "Who created the Creator?" doesn't apply to the debate because the Creator Himself is timeless and not bound by the laws of space-time. Special pleading yet again and if a god created the Universe which god did so , I take it you mean the Christian god which is yet another problem for you to explain Ok look. Let's construct a hypothetical world where God exists and he created the Universe and everything within it, okay? Just humor me for a little bit. Please. So the God in our hypothetical world created space and matter right? (Just pretend He did.) Which god are you referring to ? If you submit your own theory, I would do the same for your theory. It's like using guess-and-check to solve an algebra problem. You guess that x is 7, for example, and then plug it in assuming that it's true. So I'm guessing that God exists, and "plugging" that into the situation to see what happens and if the conditions evaluate as true. I told you my position you say something can not come from nothing you failed to demonstrate this to be fact , you said god is an exception to your rule again firstly you’ve no evidence for a god and when you get it you have to demonstrate how he came into being , also which god created the universe ? Why should I do all the work to supply your argument? I’m not hear to educate you on the several fallacies everyday debaters are aware off , I wasn’t arguing I was correcting you How about you tell me what the hell a didit fallacy is? Read above most high school debaters are familiar with such How about we both look up information that supports our own arguments?? I haven’t made an argument That's how a debate works. I don’t think you know what debate or Science or indeed fallacies are Science does not support the existence of a God When you enter into an investigation assuming stuff (like the absence of a God) You mean like assuming there’s a god , correct , you have it the wrong way around , credible scientists do not waste time on claims of supernatural entities for which there is zero evidence , maybe you could provide them with solid evidence as since the dawn of time and science not one shred of evidence has been put forward , why’s that do you think ? then you can no longer trust any resulting conclusions. Science is not interested in bullshit like “investigating” supernatural entities for which since the dawn of time there’s zero evidence for You must enter into debates and investigations and so forth assuming nothing That rules you out as you’ve asserted a god and something coming from nothing from the start , so again you’ve defeated your own arguments Side: No
1
point
We can say that I came from my mother and my mom from her mom, my father came from his mom and so on and so forth. But when we ask the question "where did god come from?" that's out-of-the line because when we say God, it is an eternal being, it has no end and no beginning. It's like asking the question "What can you see?" to a blind man, a blind man is in no state of seeing things so the question is in fact flawed. In the same way a God is absolutely not in the category of being created. It is uncreated. He/she/it just exists. If you keep asking that question then good luck mate. who created god? who created the creator of god? who created the creator of the created god? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely anything, so we know something had to have always been in existence. (please rebut me. I just lost my recent debate and I want to gather as many ideas as possible for the next one) Side: Yes
Why the downvote ? We can say that I came from my mother and my mom from her mom, my father came from his mom and so on and so forth. Yes, that’s stating the obvious But when we ask the question "where did god come from?" that's out-of-the line That’s you evading what I asked because when we say God, it is an eternal being, it has no end and no beginning. Prove your god first It's like asking the question "What can you see?" to a blind man, a blind man is in no state of seeing things so the question is in fact flawed. That makes no sense In the same way a God is absolutely not in the category of being created. I don’t believe in a god It is uncreated. Prove it He/she/it just exists. Prove it If you keep asking that question then good luck mate. Meaning you cannot answer who created god? Yes , are you going to answer ? who created the creator of god? I thought I was asking the question ? who created the creator of the created god? Read above We know that from nothing, nothing comes. No , you claim you do prove it So, if there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence Prove it . But things exist. Yes Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely anything, Prove it so we know something had to have always been in existence. No we don’t , prove it (please rebut me. I just lost my recent debate and I want to gather as many ideas as possible for the next one) You’ve made no arguments to rebut all you’ve done is given your opinion as you can prove nothing you claimed Side: No
Ok look. Dermot and I have come up with one more theory than you, so until you've got a plausible theory that works for the Creation of the Universe from nothing, back the heck down please and thank you. I should be clear - the existence of God cannot be undeniably proved or disproved. I'm only trying to show that science repeatedly points toward the existence of a Creator. For now, we're using the BB to argue that point. To clarify Dermot's point: Assume that God exists (bear with me here). If He created the universe and space and matter, then that means he also created time. And if He created time, then he is not bound by time, so He has no beginning. Dermot's analogy of the blind man is meant to show that the blind man sees nothing because he cannot see, and in the same way, nothing created God because God doesn't need a creator. I will admit it wasn't the best analogy, but it works. As for the string of questions about the Creator of the Creator of the Creator and so on, I think Dermot was attempting to show that if you attempt to find who created God, you will go down an endless rabbit hole of Creators. Side: Yes
1
point
Ok look. Dermot and I have come up with one more theory than you, I haven’t put forward any theory so until you've got a plausible theory that works for the Creation of the Universe from nothing, Who’s saying the Universe came from nothing ? back the heck down please and thank you. Who is this referring to ? I should be clear - the existence of God cannot be undeniably proved or disproved. Yes , like the existence of unicorns I'm only trying to show that science repeatedly points toward the existence of a Creator That’s incorrect . For now, we're using the BB to argue that point. You’re using that I’m not To clarify Dermot's point: You’re misrepresenting my point as I never made an “ analogy”as in below ..... Assume that God exists (bear with me here). If He created the universe and space and matter, then that means he also created time. And if He created time, then he is not bound by time, so He has no beginning. Dermot's analogy of the blind man is meant to show that the blind man sees nothing because he cannot see, and in the same way, nothing created God because God doesn't need a creator. I will admit it wasn't the best analogy, but it works. You’re making no sense at all As for the string of questions about the Creator of the Creator of the Creator and so on, I think Dermot was attempting to show that if you attempt to find who created God, you will go down an endless rabbit hole of Creators. Yes Side: Yes
I meant Falseking1 sorry wrong username Me. Um what do you think the Big Bang did? There was nothing and then there was something. You Um okay thanks You're wrong. That's what we're debating Exactly. You're arguing against me. Again, that's what we're debating How am I making no sense? Think about it. If God simultaneously creates the dimensions of space, matter and time, then he therefore doesn't have to abide by those rules and dimensions. Side: Yes
I meant Falseking1 sorry wrong username Me. Um what do you think the Big Bang did? Is that not obvious in the name ? There was nothing and then there was something. So something can come from nothing ? You Um okay thanks What’s that mean ? You're wrong. That's what we're debating I don’t know what you’re referring to , can you post in bold what you’re replying to ? Exactly. You're arguing against me. Again, that's what we're debating ?? How am I making no sense? To me you’re making none Think about it I have If God simultaneously IF creates the dimensions of space, matter and time, then he therefore doesn't have to abide by those rules and dimensions. Prove there is a god first ? I also note Falseking cannot defend his position so uses his alt accounts to downvote me , typical “Christian “ tactics Side: No
I can't PROVE that there is or is not a God. I said that already. And this piece of evidence doesn't yet suggest directly that God exists. That comes later, mostly in my points about astrology, physics, DNA, and evolution. But that comes later. Let's finish this conversation up first so we can focus on one thing at a time. This section of the argument is constructed by going through theories and striking down the ones that don't work based on evidence, and so far I am the only person here who has suggested a working theory that makes sense. is that not obvious in the name? Yes, it is. You suggested that it's not certain that the BB created something from nothing, but I was saying that actually it is, which is really the whole center point of this section of my argument. typical Christian tactics I don't like your implication about Christians being cheaters. I would like to publicly denounce Falseking1's cheating. However, I won't apologize for Falseking1's behavior, just denounce it. Also, I have already messaged him and asked him to stop, and I submitted a request to the Administrators to rectify the problem. Side: Yes
I can't PROVE that there is or is not a God. I know I said that already Yes . And this piece of evidence doesn't yet suggest directly that God exists. I know That comes later, You mean evidence ? mostly in my points about astrology, Astrology ??? physics, DNA, and evolution. What has Evolution got to do with this line of argument? But that comes later. Ok Let's finish this conversation up first so we can focus on one thing at a time. Ok This section of the argument is constructed by going through theories Youre misusing the term theory if you’re applying it to a god as that’s mere speculation and nothing else and striking down the ones that don't work based on evidence That rules a god out so , and so far I am the only person here who has suggested a working theory that makes sense. You haven’t , you’re using the fallacy of special pleading , it is. You suggested that it's not certain that the BB created something from nothing, but I was saying that actually it is, Prove it , also they are more theories than the Big Bang which is really the whole center point of this section of my argument. You’ve yet to make an argument typical Christian tactics I don't like your implication about Christians being cheaters. Whether you like it or not matters little to me as the veracity of my claims can be borne out by the majority of Christians on here who when challenged , flee , downvote or ban , so yes it’s typical I would like to publicly denounce Falseking1's cheating. However, I won't apologize for Falseking1's behavior I nor no one else asked you to , just denounce it. Also, I have already messaged him and asked him to stop, and I submitted a request to the Administrators to rectify the problem. Good luck with that , he’s a coward like many more of his type on here Side: No
You mean evidence ? Yep Astrology ??? Also yep. Oh wait, astrology is like some spiritual bullsht. Scratch that - I meant astronomy. Oops What has Evolution got to do with this line of argument? Nothing. I'm getting to evolution later on. You'll see. It's irrelevant right now. Youre misusing the term theory if you’re applying it to a god as that’s mere speculation and nothing else All theories are speculation, or at most a hypothesis, and then you move through the facts and science to strike down the ones that don't work. That rules a god out so I haven't seen you prove that it doesn't. The point here is that because we know so little about the beginning of the universe, that we need to pick the one that works the best, and what I'm trying to get you guys to do is introduce theories that work AND strike down my own with facts. the fallacy of special pleading I don't know what that is. Prove it , also they are more theories than the Big Bang Like what? You've yet to make an argument My argument is that my theory hasn't been struck down and you haven't even produced any theories yourself*, so you haven't even given yourself an opportunity to show that there are theories that are more realistic than my own. Whether you like it or not matters little to me as the veracity of my claims can be borne out by the majority of Christians on here who when challenged , flee , downvote or ban , so yes it’s typical So you mean "typical of Christians on here?" It sounded like you said you were generalizing the entire Christian religion, which pewresearch.com says takes up nearly one-third of the world's population. I nor no one else asked you to Cool Good luck with that , he’s a coward like many more of his type on here Well I think that by arguing with science AND by following rules, I am separating myself from other Christians on here who hypocritically violate the Christian ideal of good character, which, quite sadly, is a widespread pattern that repeats itself throughout history. Side: Yes
All theories are speculation, They’re not , you need to look the definition up or at most a hypothesis, and then you move through the facts and science to strike down the ones that don't work. Which rules god out I haven't seen you prove that it doesnt You’re the one claiming a god is necessary to create a Universe The point here is that because we know so little about the beginning of the universe, that we need to pick the one that works the best, No we don’t , the intellectually honest answer is to say “ I don’t know “ and what I'm trying to get you guys to do is introduce theories that work You haven’t got a “theory” unless you loosely apply the term And strike down my own with facts. I doubt you want to hear facts the fallacy of special pleading I don't know what that is. Well look it up Like what? Do a bit of research You've yet to make an argument My argument is that my theory hasn't been struck down and you haven't even produced any theories yourself You haven’t got a theory just special pleading , I don’t have to have a theory of my own , why would you think that ? , so you haven't even given yourself an opportunity to show that there are theories that are more realistic than my own. More realistic ? What realistic about a supernatural entity creating a universe ? And if one has no alternative theories that does not mean it must be a god So you mean "typical of Christians on here?" Yes it sounded like you said you were generalizing the entire Christian religion, which pewresearch.com says takes up nearly one-third of the world's population. Did it indeed ? Well that’s on you not me my entire family are Christians , he’s a coward like many more of his type on here Well I think that by arguing with science AND by following rules, I am separating myself from other Christians on here who hypocritically violate the Christian ideal of good character, which, quite sadly, is a widespread pattern that repeats itself throughout history. Good for you Side: No
They’re not , you need to look the definition up Fun fact - I literally did look it up before typing the argument. But if you want to get into semantics, fine. I'll start calling it a "wild guess" okay? And the process right now is checking my "wild guess" against facts. Which God rules out That's exactly what I'm asking you to prove. You’re the one claiming a god is necessary to create a Universe I meant that I haven't seen you prove that my wild guess doesn't work. No we don’t , the intellectually honest answer is to say “ I don’t know “ Agreed. But the intellectually honest follow-up to that is to say "but it was probably..." So what do you think it was? look it up looks like special pleading is applying rules or standards to someone else but not yourself. I'm not doing that. My "rule" is that we present wild guesses or theories or whatever to each other, and we both examine the theory without making any unreasonable prior assumptions, and then we come to the best conclusion. So if you were to provide me with a theory or whatever, then we could examine it and check it against the facts. Do a bit of research Okay um well... off the top of my head.... the Oscillating Universe Theory is one. That theory, briefly considered by Einstein, says that maybe the universe goes through a pattern of endlessly repeating expanding and shrinking and expanding and shrinking and so on. However, this theory is ridiculous. According to an essay on the topic by Helge Kragh, the President of the European Society for the History of Science, says that the Oscillating Universe Theory is "it has not found any use in science and is generally thought to be absurd." You haven’t got a theory just special pleading Alright, I'll give you a theory: An immaterial, all-powerful, timeless, supreme being called God created the universe and everything within it. I don’t have to have a theory of my own , why would you think that ? Because if a scientist wants to show someone's theory as incorrect, they either have to show some part of it that's impossible or present a theory that works better. Now, could you please give a quick review of the facts you have that dispute my theory one more time? And please remember - don't assume anything when you state your facts. What realistic about a supernatural entity creating a universe ? Because it makes the most sense And if one has no alternative theories that does not mean it must be a god Of course it doesn't. If no one has alternate theories that work, it means that it's probably a God. my entire family are Christians also cool Side: Yes
I literally did look it up before typing the argument Yet , you still don’t comprehend what the term means . but if you want to get into semantics, fine. I’m not getting into semantics I’m stating a fact I'll start calling it a "wild guess" okay? That’s accurate And the process right now is checking my "wild guess" against facts. That would make sense That's exactly what I'm asking you to prove. You’re the one making the god claim I meant that I haven't seen you prove that my wild guess doesn't work. So there’s the usual dance by Christians they begin by saying there is a god and cannot prove it so ask an atheist to disprove it Agreed. But the intellectually honest follow-up to that is to say "but it was probably... Ok , but it probably was pink unicorns , hows that work " So what do you think it was?
What part of “ I don’t know do you not understand “? look it up looks like special pleading is applying rules or standards to someone else but not yourself. I'm not doing that. You are making an exception for god as in he wasn’t created that’s special pleading My "rule" is that we present wild guesses or theories or whatever to each other Your rule ? My rule is wild guesses are not theories so have no place in the exchange , and we both examine the theory without making any unreasonable prior assumptions, and then we come to the best conclusion. Ok give me a theory backed by science , you can keep the wild guesses as you now know they are not theories So if you were to provide me with a theory or whatever, then we could examine it and check it against the facts. Why would I want to do that when you e failed to defend your position? Do a bit of research Okay um well... off the top of my head.... the Oscillating Universe Theory is one. One of hundreds That theory, briefly considered by Einstein, says that maybe the universe goes through a pattern of endlessly repeating expanding and shrinking and expanding and shrinking and so on. However, this theory is ridiculous. Why would I even care ? According to an essay on the topic by Helge Kragh, the President of the European Society for the History of Science, says that the Oscillating Universe Theory is "it has not found any use in science and is generally thought to be absurd." So what ? I never even mentioned Einstein’s or Kragh and why are you appealing to authority ? Alright, I'll give you a theory: Surely you mean a wild guess An immaterial, all-powerful, timeless, supreme being called God created the universe and everything within it. That’s an opinion not a theory as I keep telling you Because if a scientist wants to show someone's theory as incorrect, You haven’t a theory you have an opinion they either have to show some part of it that's impossible or present a theory that works better. Nonsense , so someone has an opinion pink Unicorns exist and scientists have to prove otherwise ? Who tells you this nonsense ? Now, could you please give a quick review of the facts you have that dispute my theory one more time? You still haven’t got a theory And please remember - don't assume anything when you state your facts. What you’re on about is beyond me Because it makes the most sense To superstitious people yes And if one has no alternative theories that does not mean it must be a god Of course it doesn't. There you go with theories again If no one has alternate theories that work, it means that it's probably a God. No , that’s mere speculation on your part and pretty pathetic anything you cannot explain is godidit ...... great So tell me why you never defended your original statement as in ...... something is created from nothing, which is impossible and unreasonable How do you know something cannot be created from nothing ? without a Creator Who created your creator if what you say is true ? You keep asking me my position which has nothing to do with the original statements you made , so can you defend your original position? Side: No
Yet , you still don’t comprehend what the term means Actually I just looked it up again and apparently it's a "statement, which, if shown to be true, would explain something significant about the natural world," which seems to fit what I have. But how about we just go with hypothesis and quit arguing over something unimportant? So there’s the usual dance by Christians they begin by saying there is a god and cannot prove it so ask an atheist to disprove it Like I said - I can't prove it and you can't disprove it without a doubt. It's impossible to do. But I'm trying to show that my hypothesis is likely. Ok , but it probably was pink unicorns , hows that work Okay, and the intellectual would follow that up with facts to support their view, although at this point of my argument, what I'm trying to show is that there is a Creator with free will, and He made the Universe, so the species and color of that Creator doesn't matter (yet). he wasn’t created that’s special pleading I already explained this, but don't take it from me. Take it from Stephen Meyer, who has degrees in physics and geology, as well as a master's in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge, where he focused on the history of molecular biology, history of physics, and evolutionary theory. He has a doctorate from Cambridge, and he wrote his dissertation on his analysis of the scientific and methodological issues in origin-of-life biology. He is one of the most prominent members of the Design movement. He has contributed to numerous books, including Darwinism: Design and Public Education; Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design; Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design; and Science and Christianity: Four Views just to name a few. He is also currently finishing books about DNA and the Cambrian Explosion. He has spoken at Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Baylor, the University of Texas, and other colleges and universities; written for magazines like Origins and Design (where he is an associate editor), or The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies or National Review; and he's appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, and several others; and he's appeared on National Public Radio, PBS, and network television. Meyer said "If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe." In Steven Weinberg's book, The First Three Minutes, he says "In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on Earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle." Bill Bryson wrote in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything "ninety-eight percent of all the matter there is or ever will be has been produced. We have a universe. It is a place of the most wondrous and gratifying possibility, and beautiful, too. And it was all done in about the time it takes to make a sandwich." Side: Yes
Actually I just looked it up again and apparently it's a "statement, which, if shown to be true, would explain something significant about the natural world," which seems to fit what I have. But how about we just go with hypothesis and quit arguing over something unimportant? Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1] Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.[1] So there’s the usual dance by Christians they begin by saying there is a god and cannot prove it so ask an atheist to disprove it Like I said - I can't prove it and you can't disprove it without a doubt. It's impossible to do. But I'm trying to show that my hypothesis is likely. Ok , but it probably was pink unicorns , hows that work Okay, and the intellectual would follow that up with facts to support their view, although at this point of my argument, what I'm trying to show is that there is a Creator with free will, and He made the Universe, so the species and color of that Creator doesn't matter (yet). he wasn’t created that’s special pleading I already explained this, but don't take it from me. Take it from Stephen Meyer, who has degrees in physics and geology, as well as a master's in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge, where he focused on the history of molecular biology, history of physics, and evolutionary theory. He has a doctorate from Cambridge, and he wrote his dissertation on his analysis of the scientific and methodological issues in origin-of-life biology. He is one of the most prominent members of the Design movement. He has contributed to numerous books, including Darwinism: Design and Public Education; Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design; Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design; and Science and Christianity: Four Views just to name a few. He is also currently finishing books about DNA and the Cambrian Explosion. He has spoken at Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Baylor, the University of Texas, and other colleges and universities; written for magazines like Origins and Design (where he is an associate editor), or The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies or National Review; and he's appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, and several others; and he's appeared on National Public Radio, PBS, and network television. Meyer said "If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe." In Steven Weinberg's book, The First Three Minutes, he says "In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on Earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle." Bill Bryson wrote in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything "ninety-eight percent of all the matter there is or ever will be has been produced. We have a universe. It is a place of the most wondrous and gratifying possibility, and beautiful, too. And it was all done in about the time it takes to make a sandwich." Side: No
Actually I just looked it up again and apparently it's a "statement, which, if shown to be true, would explain something significant about the natural world," which seems to fit what I have. But how about we just go with hypothesis and quit arguing over something unimportant? It’s interesting you started out saying all theories are speculation which is simply not true , when shown the correct meaning of the term theory and speculation you changed your mind and accepted the new definition for your god claim as in a wild guess , which in fairness is more honest and accurate . Now you’re back to using another term incorrectly as in hypothesis even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research , I’m afraid your god claim is neither a hypothesis nor a theory but merely idle speculation or as you put it a wild guess Like I said - I can't prove it and you can't disprove it without a doubt. Yes the same way I cannot prove pink Unicorns or the FSM exists but that’s good enough for me It's impossible to do. But I'm trying to show that my hypothesis is likely. If your wild guess is as it seems true for you excellent I’ve yet to hear a half decent argument for a god , and the intellectual would follow that up with facts to support their view, although at this point of my argument, Which you’ve yet to do what I'm trying to show is that there is a Creator with free will, and He made the Universe You have not demonstrated this to be the case , so the species and color of that Creator doesn't matter (yet). Read above I already explained this, Which you did so without proof but don't take it from me. I don’t Take it from Stephen Meyer who has degrees in physics and geology, as well as a master's in the history and philosophy of science from Cambridge, where he focused on the history of molecular biology, history of physics, and evolutionary theory. Why would I take it from Meyers appeals to authority don’t impress me He has a doctorate from Cambridge, and he wrote his dissertation on his analysis of the scientific and methodological issues in origin-of-life biology. Oh dear , I totally forgot about this bumbling half wit Meyers , I just looked through a couple of links from the past I had on file to see what an absolute embarrassment most of his writings have been , anyone with a grain of credit in the scientific community runs a mile from this idiot and his inane rantings Little news flash for you and Meyers ...... Evolution is accepted as fact except by a few mostly evangelical American believers and assorted nuts around the world He is one of the most prominent members of the Design movement. Design movement ...Oh dear , no peer reviewed papers supporting his nonsense I note He has contributed to numerous books, including Darwinism: Design and Public Education; Mere Creation: Science, Faith and Intelligent Design; Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design; and Science and Christianity: Four Views just to name a few. He is also currently finishing books about DNA and the Cambrian Explosion. He has spoken at Cambridge, Oxford, Yale, Baylor, the University of Texas, and other colleges and universities; written for magazines like Origins and Design (where he is an associate editor), or The Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies or National Review; and he's appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, and several others; and he's appeared on National Public Radio, PBS, and network television. Again so what ? His books are spectacularly embarrassing in content Meyer said "If it's true there's a beginning to the universe, as modern cosmologists now agree, then this implies a cause that transcends the universe." Pity he cannot prove it isn’t it ? In Steven Weinberg's book, The First Three Minutes, he says "In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on Earth, starting from a definite center and spreading out to engulf more and more of the circumambient air, but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filling all space from the beginning with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle." Bill Bryson wrote in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything "ninety-eight percent of all the matter there is or ever will be has been produced. We have a universe. It is a place of the most wondrous and gratifying possibility, and beautiful, too. And it was all done in about the time it takes to make a sandwich." Your appeals to authority are meaningless and why you do it is beyond me , thought you said you had facts for your claims ? Side: No
Now you’re back to using another term incorrectly as in hypothesis even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research , I’m afraid your god claim is neither a hypothesis nor a theory but merely idle speculation or as you put it a wild guess Actually a hypothesis is definitely speculative. Remember the scientific method? You state something that could be true and then investigate it. I'm working on the investigation. Yes the same way I cannot prove pink Unicorns or the FSM exists but that’s good enough for me I dunno what FSM is If your wild guess is as it seems true for you excellent I’ve yet to hear a half decent argument for a god Working on it Why would I take it from Meyers appeals to authority don’t impress me Oh, so you're saying "he's studied way more science than I have but I don't care"? I just looked through a couple of links from the past I had on file Yeah... you Googled it anyone with a grain of credit in the scientific community runs a mile from this idiot and his inane rantings Prove it. Did you not see that he's a college professor who speaks at several prestigious universities? On top of that, the past cannot possibly be eternal - it makes no sense. Infinity is a concept that exists only in the conceptual realm. And I have sources for that as well. William Lane Craig, PhD, ThD, is a prominent member of the Design movement. He's contributed to several books, written for several scientific and philosophical journals, and he is a member of 9 professional societies - including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Forum, the American Scientific Affiliation, to name only a few. He explained that the idea of an "infinite past" is absurd: "Let's use an example involving marbles. Imagine I had an infinite number of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of marbles. In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself. However, another way to do it would be to give you all of the odd-numbered marbles. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you have an infinity too. You'd have just as many as I would - and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even! Or, another approach would be for me to give you all of the marbles numbered four and higher. That way, you would have an infinity of marbles, but I would have only three marbles left. What these illustrations demonstrate is that the notion of an actual infinite number of things leads to contradictory results. In the first case in which I gave you all the marbles, infinity minus infinity is zero; in the second case in which I gave you all the odd-numbered marbles, infinity minus infinity is infinity; and in the third case in which I gave you all the marbles numbered four and greater, infinity minus infinity is three. In each case, we have subtracted the identical number from the identical number, but we have come up with non-identical results. For that reason, mathematicians are forbidden from doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithmetic, because this would lead to contradictions. You see, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite qualities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However -- and here's the point -- it's not descriptive of what can happen in the real world. Substitute 'past events' for 'marbles,' and you can see the absurdities that would result. So the universe can't have an infinite number of events in its past: it must have had a beginning. In fact, we can go further. Even if you could have an actually infinite number of things, you couldn't form such a collection by adding one member after another. That's because no matter how many you add, you can always add one more before you get to infinity. This is sometimes called the Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite. But if the past really were infinite, then that would mean we have managed to traverse an infinite past to arrive at today. It would be as if someone had managed to count down all the negative numbers and to arrive at zero at the present moment. Such a task is intuitively nonsense. For that reason as well, we can conclude there must have been a beginning to the universe." So if you cannot have eternal past events, the universe and everything that exists (except God) had a Beginning. Therefore, something transcendent of the universe caused the universe itself. Little news flash for you and Meyers ...... Evolution is accepted as fact except by a few mostly evangelical American believers and assorted nuts around the world Little news for you - Meyers and I both believe in Evolution. It's real. So is natural selection. We see this in how most humans look quite different from the rest of their own species in facial structure, skin tone, height, etc etc etc. Darwinism, on the other hand, is total crap. The fossil record, which provides concrete evidence here, shows that the Cambrian Explosion produced most - if not all - the 30 major phyla we have today in an extremely short time period, which Darwinism cannot account for at all. That's just one example of the issues with Darwinism. Side: Yes
Actually a hypothesis is definitely speculative. Remember the scientific method? Remember a working hypothesis? Yet you admitted you were going on a “ wild guess “ bit like your buddy Meyers I guess You state something that could be true and then investigate it. I'm working on the investigation. Good luck with that 👌😂 I dunno what FSM is Google is your friend Working on it Ah ....yeah 👌 Why would I take it from Meyers appeals to authority don’t impress me Oh, so you're saying "he's studied way more science than I have but I don't care"? No, I’m saying his writings are an embarrassment and speak volumes about the man Yeah... you Googled it Actually no I didn’t need to , if it’s suits your narrative by all means use it Maybe you should google the reviews by credible scientists of his appalling gibberish? Prove it ? Read above Did you not see that he's a college professor who speaks at several prestigious universities? So what ? What’s a “prestigious “ event ? Where’s his peer reviewed papers regarding his claims ? On top of that, the past cannot possibly be eternal - it makes no sense. Prove it ? Where did I say the past was eternal ? Infinity is a concept that exists only in the conceptual realm. Read above And I have sources for that as well. Meyers ? William Lane Craig, PhD, ThD, is a prominent member of the Design movement. Design movement 😂😂 What you really mean is Craig is a Theologian who pushes bullshit and pseudoscientific nonsense which his acolytes swallow like eager little groupies His arguments have all been shredded in the past and his go to argument is the Kalam cosmological argument which is pathetic beyond words , so what’s your point ? He's contributed to several books, written for several scientific and philosophical journals, and he is a member of 9 professional societies - including the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Forum, the American Scientific Affiliation, to name only a few. Any Peer reviewed papers regarding his claims ? He explained that the idea of an "infinite past" is absurd: But why would I accept anything that clown says ? "Let's use an example involving marbles. Imagine I had an infinite number of marbles in my possession, and that I wanted to give you some. In fact, suppose I wanted to give you an infinite number of marbles. One way I could do that would be to give you the entire pile of marbles. In that case I would have zero marbles left for myself. However, another way to do it would be to give you all of the odd-numbered marbles. Then I would still have an infinity left over for myself, and you have an infinity too. You'd have just as many as I would - and, in fact, each of us would have just as many as I originally had before we divided into odd and even! Or, another approach would be for me to give you all of the marbles numbered four and higher. That way, you would have an infinity of marbles, but I would have only three marbles left. What these illustrations demonstrate is that the notion of an actual infinite number of things leads to contradictory results. In the first case in which I gave you all the marbles, infinity minus infinity is zero; in the second case in which I gave you all the odd-numbered marbles, infinity minus infinity is infinity; and in the third case in which I gave you all the marbles numbered four and greater, infinity minus infinity is three. In each case, we have subtracted the identical number from the identical number, but we have come up with non-identical results. For that reason, mathematicians are forbidden from doing subtraction and division in transfinite arithmetic, because this would lead to contradictions. You see, the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds. Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite qualities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm. However -- and here's the point -- it's not descriptive of what can happen in the real world. Substitute 'past events' for 'marbles,' and you can see the absurdities that would result. So the universe can't have an infinite number of events in its past: it must have had a beginning. In fact, we can go further. Even if you could have an actually infinite number of things, you couldn't form such a collection by adding one member after another. That's because no matter how many you add, you can always add one more before you get to infinity. This is sometimes called the Impossibility of Traversing the Infinite. But if the past really were infinite, then that would mean we have managed to traverse an infinite past to arrive at today. It would be as if someone had managed to count down all the negative numbers and to arrive at zero at the present moment. Such a task is intuitively nonsense. For that reason as well, we can conclude there must have been a beginning to the universe." So if you cannot have eternal past events, the universe and everything that exists (except God) had a Beginning. Except god 😂😂😂 there’s that fallacy of special pleading yet again typical Craig and Meyers bullshit Therefore, something transcendent of the universe caused the universe itself. Prove it It's real. So is natural selection. We see this in how most humans look quite different from the rest of their own species in facial structure, skin tone, height, etc etc etc. Darwinism, on the other hand, is total crap. Darwinism ? Oh I see you’re using the term Darwinism as in .....the term usually refers strictly to biological evolution, creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work Typical Meyers , Craig line of attack and one much favoured by American fundies and assorted nuts from across the globe , just shows the “intellectual” dishonesty used by your poster boys The fossil record, which provides concrete evidence here, shows that the Cambrian Explosion produced most - if not all - the 30 major phyla we have today in an extremely short time period, which Darwinism cannot account for at all. That's just one example of the issues with Darwinism. I look forward to reading Meyers and your joint peer reviewed paper on the matter 👌😂 Your appeals to authority and fallacious thinking as in special pleading are becoming rather desperate, you said you had facts to back your claims up yet you rely on nuts like Meyers and Craig to bolster your highly dubious speculations Side: No
Yet you admitted you were going on a “ wild guess “ bit like your buddy Meyers I guess Why are you arguing about something as pointless as the specific words we use? Google is your friend I Googled "fsm" and got "Fortuna Silver Mines, Inc" and I assume that's not what you meant, so maybe you tell me what it is if you're gonna bring it up. No, I’m saying his writings are an embarrassment and speak volumes about the man When I provide a list of references for someone, why do you criticize "appeals to authority"? I don't understand. So what? So... if he speaks at prestigious colleges and universities, that means he's respected by the heads of those colleges, which backs up his credibility. What’s a “prestigious “ event ? An event or debate or conference or whatever that's attended by respected members of the scientific community. Where’s his peer reviewed papers regarding his claims ? Ummm did you even try to find one?? bit.ly/MeyerPaper Where did I say the past was eternal ? Okay let me clarify something - Can we agree that the universe has a definite beginning? Side: Yes
Why are you arguing about something as pointless as the specific words we use? I’m not , I’m correcting your constant misuse of terms to suit your narrative I Googled "fsm" and got "Fortuna Silver Mines, Inc" and I assume that's not what you meant, so maybe you tell me what it is if you're gonna bring it up. I got Flying Spaghetti Monster When I provide a list of references for someone, why do you criticize "appeals to authority"? I don't understand. You somehow think the mans credntials make his arguments stronger , which they don’t , you are appealing to authority as in your irrational reliance on the ramblings of Meyers and Craig So... if he speaks at prestigious colleges and universities, that means he's respected by the heads of those colleges, which backs up his credibility. What a strange notion , Hitler was Time magazine person of the year in past times I guess that backed his credibility up , David Irving the Historian and holocaust deniers lectured in universities I guess that made him also more credible ? An event or debate or conference or whatever that's attended by respected members of the scientific community. Respected members of the science community slated his appalling books regarding Evolution and pseudoscience , why are you bullshitting ? Ummm did you even try to find one?? Ummm yeah bit.ly/MeyerPaper What a shocker your link doesn’t work, one of the primary criticisms of the intelligent design movement is that there are no research papers supporting their positions in peer reviewed scientific journals...... bet you cannot provide a few ? Okay let me clarify something - Can we agree that the universe has a definite beginning? Which Universe ? Side: No
I’m not , I’m correcting your constant misuse of terms to suit your narrative Cool I got Flying Spaghetti Monster Ok cool so why is this relevant again? I told you - the specific name of my God doesn't matter. You somehow think the mans credntials make his arguments stronger , which they don’t , you are appealing to authority as in your irrational reliance on the ramblings of Meyers and Craig Ok where are your references that make you credible enough to dispute their credibility?? Where do you have sources that show Meyers and Craig to be "irrational"? What a shocker your link doesn’t work Ok ummmm just say "it doesn't work" and then let me f*cking fix it instead of attacking me on a personal level for a mistake. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/ Which Universe ? Ummmm ours... can we agree that our currently existing universe had a beginning? Side: Yes
Cool Excellent , you take correction about time Ok cool so why is this relevant again? Why not look back at your original point regarding the matter ? I told you - the specific name of my God doesn't matter. You certainly make a big song and dance about him Ok where are your references that make you credible enough to dispute their credibility?? How pathetic you bow and scrape to people who have degrees but support pseudoscience, why am I not surprised ..... Now before you debate anyone in the future check there qualifications and if they have more than you well you better flee ..... got ya 👌☺️ Where do you have sources that show Meyers and Craig to be "irrational"? For Meyers his writings and his mockworthy “institute “ demonstrate his irrationally, Craig is just a buffoon who’s debates on you tube are shockingly bad Ok ummmm just say "it doesn't work" Ok .....ummmm it doesn’t work and then let me fcking fix it instead of attacking me on a personal level for a mistake. Oh dear , you get very easily upset don’t you , where did I “attack “ you ? http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/ main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.2 How pathetic , so now you resort to an attempt at deception , let me educate you further .... BIO-Complexity is an open access journal published by the weirdly named Biologic Institute, a lame front for creation science. The journal "aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life". Good luck with Ummmm ours... Ummmm 🤔 can we agree that our currently existing universe had a beginning * Were you there ? Side: No
Why not look back at your original point regarding the matter ? You brought it up You certainly make a big song and dance about him What does that have to do with anything? I'm just using the word "God" to refer to a general Creator. How pathetic you bow and scrape to people who have degrees but support pseudoscience, why am I not surprised ..... Ummm see a college degree means that the person knows stuff about the thing. I'm not worshipping these guys, just giving them their due credit because they've studied this stuff. For Meyers his writings and his mockworthy “institute “ demonstrate his irrationally How do they demonstrate it? Show me specific examples. Craig is just a buffoon who’s debates on you tube are shockingly bad Can I have examples? Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye both appear on YouTube... Oh dear , you get very easily upset don’t you , where did I “attack “ you ? When you ridicule and mock me throughout the debate so now you resort to an attempt at deception not really Were you there ? no. answer my question - can we agree that the universe has a beginning?? Side: Yes
(I wasn't done sorry) What you really mean is Craig is a Theologian who pushes bullshit and pseudoscientific nonsense which his acolytes swallow like eager little groupies Mhmmmm nope I mean he's an established scientist Any Peer reviewed papers regarding his claims ? I'll work on finding that... but hey did you notice how so many scientific communities accept and respect him? Those are major societies. You can't just get a membership - you have to have credibility. there’s that fallacy of special pleading I told you - it's not special pleading. God created the universe, which would mean he created space-time, which would mean he's transcendent of the dimension of time and doesn't need a Creator! creationists have appropriated it to refer to the origin of life, and it has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution, both of which have no connection to Darwin's work The central statement of Darwinism is that all currently living species descend from a single ancestor from a million years ago, and that the changes in species came about through small, gradual changes. (By the way, yes I understand that the peer-reviewed paper I sent you is unrelated, but peer-reviewed papers tend to be rare for specific scientists) Side: Yes
Mhmmmm nope I mean he's an established scientist With a bizarre interest in Pseudoscience i I'll work on finding that... I just put that ridiculous claim to bed and saved you the trouble but hey did you notice how so many scientific communities accept and respect him? Have you noticed how he’s no peer reviewed papers in credible journals backing his gibberish up ? Have you noticed how credible scientists slated his embarrassing efforts at authorship ? Those are major societies. You can't just get a membership - you have to have credibility. You mean like the I D institute ? 👌😂😂 I told you - it's not special pleading. Really , watch and learn God created the universe, That’s it there you idiot , as in above, look up the fallacy of special pleading or get an adult to explain it to you which would mean he created space-time, which would mean he's transcendent of the dimension of time and doesn't need a Creator! Prove it The central statement of Darwinism is that all currently living species descend from a single ancestor from a million years ago, and that the changes in species came about through small, gradual changes. Yawn (By the way, yes I understand that the peer-reviewed paper I sent you is unrelated, but peer-reviewed papers tend to be rare for specific scientists) They’re non exsistent for Meyers , and yes they are rare as hens teeth for intelligent design idiots Side: No
With a bizarre interest in Pseudoscience i prove it Have you noticed how credible scientists slated his embarrassing efforts at authorship ? no i didn't notice that because you still haven't provided anything to support the idea that Meyer is disrespected in the scientific community You mean like the I D institute ? no that's open-source like you said. i mean like the actual societies I listed that he's in. That’s it there you idiot you don't call that a personal attack? Prove it for the millionth time - you can't definitively prove or disprove god, but if you'd quit being so difficult then we could have a civilized debate look up the fallacy of special pleading already did that thanks. as i explained, god is timeless and doesn't need a creator bc he transcends the dimension of time Prove it see above Side: Yes
prove it ID is pseudoscience you idiot no i didn't notice that because you still haven't provided anything to support the idea that Meyer is disrespected in the scientific community ID is not part of the scientific community you idiot no that's open-source like you said. i mean like the actual societies I listed that he's in. But you said he was peer reviewed which he wasn’t and you never named any societies you idiot That’s it there you idiot you don't call that a personal attack? I treat everyone I Debate with respect until they fire of the first insult , you went for a very nasty one as in retarded in your other post so now I will treat you with the contempt you deserve you idiot Prove it for the millionth time - you can't definitively prove or disprove god, but if you'd quit being so difficult then we could have a civilized debate You don’t do civilized you idiot already did that thanks. as i explained, god is timeless and doesn't need a creator bc he transcends the dimension of time Special pleading again you retard A Special Pleading fallacy is a fallacy wherein people create a rule or apply an existing rule to a situation and then proceed to make someone or something exempt from this rule without providing real justification for that exemption. Side: No
ID is pseudoscience you idiot Prove it ID is not part of the scientific community you idiot Just because they support him doesn't make him a fake. Remember all those other references I gave? Can you provide proof that scientists don't respect him???? But you said he was peer reviewed which he wasn’t and you never named any societies you idiot I named like 5 of them - hold on let me find my list. You don’t do civilized you idiot Cool Special pleading again you retard How is it special pleading? The laws of physics do not apply to god because he created them Side: Yes
Prove it Why not try Rational Wiki ? The divine comedy Creationism Running gags • Biblical literalism • Young/Old Earth • Intelligent design • Creation scientists Jokes aside • Creationism and social history • Geomagnetism • Radiometric dating • Y-chromosomal Adam Blooper reel • Junk DNA • Petrified forest • Radiometric dating • Thunderf00t debates Ray Comfort v - t - e For a look at some of the "controversies" around ID, see Intelligent design and academic freedom “ ” Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works." Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence. —Amanda Gefter[1] Just because they support him doesn't make him a fake. No , it makes him wrong Remember all those other references I gave? No Can you provide proof that scientists don't respect him???? Respect him for what exactly ? I’m still waiting on all theses peer reviewed papers that he’s meant to have , respected scientists have them ..... Apparently I named like 5 of them - hold on let me find my list. Yes run off and get it The laws of physics do not apply to god because he created them There’s special pleading yet again , you really are stupid you keep asking what it is and yet you keep doing it Side: No
Why not try Rational Wiki ? You try Rational Wiki. I'm not researching evidence against myself that's stupid you do it. I don't know what Rational Wiki is, or why you gave me all those bullets. Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works." Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence. Ummm God is all powerful and wills that something happens so it does. That took me like 2 seconds. Also btw, I believe in evolution - just not Darwinism. No , it makes him wrong No, it doesn't. Meyer is (probably) wrong if he has no credible people or societies who support him. Just because one society who isn't necessarily so great supports him doesn't mean he's totally wrong. No Well it was a long list. How about you go find it? There’s special pleading yet again , you really are stupid you keep asking what it is and yet you keep doing it See my most recent post. I'm not changing the rule - that's what I meant to say originally. I was just talking about stuff that exists within our universe. Side: Yes
You try Rational Wiki. I did I'm not researching evidence against myself that's stupid you do it. You asked for evidence I supplied it you half -wit I don't know what Rational Wiki is, or why you gave me all those bullets. Yes I know your stupidity is “spectacular “ Ummm God is all powerful and wills that something happens so it does. That took me like 2 seconds. Ummmm special pleading yet again Also btw, I believe in evolution - just not Darwinism. I corrected you regarding usage of the term Darwinism No, it doesn't. It does Meyer is (probably) wrong if he has no credible people or societies who support him. He has no credible people or societies that support his I D nonsense , I’m still waiting on those peer reviewed papers you lied about Just because one society who isn't necessarily so great Which one is not “so great “ you liar ? supports him doesn't mean he's totally wrong. No credible society supports him you idiot How about you go find it? Find the list you lied about you mean ? See my most recent post. I'm not changing the rule - that's what I meant to say originally. I was just talking about stuff that exists within our universe As in a god you idiot , so yet again your only “argument” is special pleading Side: No
I did Yes and now tell me the point of your blabbering nonsense you copy-pasted like a dumbass Yes I know your stupidity is “spectacular “ Because I couldn't interpret a block of nonsense? Wow cool Ummmm special pleading yet again How? I corrected you regarding usage of the term Darwinism Yeah and you said something about me applying the term to "cosmic evolution" which I don't. I don't even know what cosmic evolution is but it sounds like your kind of bullshit. When I say "Darwinism," I'm talking about the idea that all species alive today descend from a single ancestor He has no credible people or societies that support his I D nonsense , I’m still waiting on those peer reviewed papers you lied about 1. I didn't lie - I never said that they existed 2. Peer-reviewed papers are rare - I said that you deaf fucking idiot 3. Scientists tend to reject Creation science because they haven't seen all the evidence and don't understand evidence from outside their disciplines Which one is not “so great “ you liar ? ID. you liar I didn't lie, you liar As in a god you idiot , so yet again your only “argument” is special pleading It's not special pleading because God doesn't exist within our universe! He created it, and therefore is transcendent of the universe you dimwit piece of shit! Side: Yes
Yes and now tell me the point of your blabbering nonsense you copy-pasted like a dumbass Yes I know a site that supports rational thinking is beyond retards like you Meyers and Craig Because I couldn't interpret a block of nonsense? Read above ...you’re not a very good judge of what nonsense is seeing as you jack yourself off when talking about Meyers babblings in print Ummm special pleading yet again How? Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. Yeah Yeah you said something about me applying the term to "cosmic evolution" I said ID people use it , glad you think it’s bullshit as your buddy Meyers uses it ..... So you agree Meyers is a bullshitter I don't even know what cosmic evolution is Must be a term you and Meyers came up with when you were licking his ass crack as he’s very familiar with the term but it sounds like your kind of bullshit. This from an idiot like you who believes Jesus the zombie rose from the dead is hilarious When I say "Darwinism," .......... I corrected you on this several times already , it’s your lot use the term “cosmic Evolution “ ...... 1. I didn't lie - I never said that they existed Ah right so he’s no peer reviewed papers, yet you claimed he had many Peer-reviewed papers are rare - I said that you deaf fucking idiot For Meyers and Craig they’re non existent for credible scientists they’re plentiful , Meyers prints a piece of bullshit in his own “journal “ and calls it peer reviewed ....you’re a dummy Scientists tend to reject Creation science because they haven't seen all the evidence They haven’t seen any you dumb bastard , why not post your “evidence “up you thick fuck ? and don't understand evidence from outside their disciplines Which one is not “so great “ you liar ? So the reason you lot cannot post “evidence” up is because scientists cannot understand it ..... What the hell is “outside their own disciplines “ oh you mean they don’t accept bullshit about the existence of supernatural entities and you want what’s hilariously called “ Christian scientists “ to give their part of the “ story “ .....got ya ID. ID It's not special pleading because God doesn't exist within our universe! Special pleading yet again Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. He created it, and therefore is transcendent of Special pleading Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. Side: No
I’ve done so several times Well I'm stupid so explain it simpler. What was that block of text from Rational Wiki all about? special pleading I already explained this but I'll do it again. As you said, special pleading is creating rules and then making something exempt from those rules without explaining the exception. And I explained the exception: God is exempt from the laws of physics because he created them. He exists outside the universe, and doesn't need a Creator! The Creator of the Laws of Physics doesn't have to follow those laws. godidit Yep, you're gonna pull out the whole "God of the Gaps" thing. I also explained this, but I'll explain this again as well. It's not a "God of the Gaps" because I can explain how he made it happen: 1. He's all-powerful. 2. He willed it to happen. Side: Yes
Well I'm stupid Agreed So explain it simpler. Ok , run off and get your crayons and some paper and I will attempt to explain it .....again special pleading I already explained this but I'll do it again. But you didn’t know what it was till I told you As you said, special pleading is creating rules and then making something exempt from those rules without explaining the exception. Yes as in god And I explained the exception: You gave your “explanation “ but you didn’t prove it so it’s special pleading God is exempt from the laws of physics because he created them. Special pleading He exists outside the universe, and doesn't need a Creator! Godidit The Creator of the Laws of Physics doesn't have to follow those laws. Godidit you're gonna pull out the whole "God of the Gaps" thing. Ehhh no I also explained this, but I'll explain this again as well. It's not a "God of the Gaps" because I can explain how he made it happen: 1. He's all-powerful. Special pleading 2. He willed it to happen. Special pleading Side: No
Ok , run off and get your crayons and some paper and I will attempt to explain it .....again Ok go ahead But you didn’t know what it was till I told you actually I googled it so I knew it before you told me thanks Yes as in god Nope You gave your “explanation “ but you didn’t prove it so it’s special pleading Well, I don't need to "prove" it. It's a logical line of reasoning - watch: (assume God created the universe for like 10 seconds) 1. God created the universe 2. Therefore, he created all matter and space that exists today 3. Therefore, he created the dimension of time, because Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that you can't have time without space and matter 4. Therefore, before God created Time, God existed 5. Therefore, God is timeless You can't really "prove" something that follows along with logic (and no, I don't mean that I can't prove it because of how much of a retard I am, so don't say it) Godidit Godidit is just saying "Oh, I don't understand this thing, so I'm gonna just say it was God" whenever you don't understand something, right? I want to establish a baseline definition before we get into it here. Godidit See above Ehhh no Godidit is the "God of the Gaps" Special pleading See argument above where I explained thoroughly Special pleading See argument above where I explained thoroughly Side: Yes
again Ok go ahead I changed my mind run back and put your crayons away so I knew it before you told me thanks But you didn’t understand it Nope Yep I don't need to "prove" it. It's a logical line of reasoning - watch: You do (assume God created the universe for like 10 seconds) Special pleading .......again 1. God created the universe 2. Therefore, he created all matter and space that exists today 3. Therefore, he created the dimension of time, because Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that you can't have time without space and matter 4. Therefore, before God created Time, God existed 5. Therefore, God is timeless Special pleading all day long You can't really "prove" something that follows along with logic (and no, I don't mean that I can't prove it because of how much of a retard I am, so don't say it) Special pleading Godidit is just saying "Oh, I don't understand this thing, so I'm gonna just say it was God" whenever you don't understand something, right? Right want to establish a baseline definition before we get into it here. Yes godidit See above Ehhh no Godidit is the "God of the Gaps" Special pleading See argument above where I explained thoroughly That’s it your whole is .... let’s assume god created the Universe and you still don’t see it as special pleading ....... Let’s assume the FSM , Unicorns or Odin created the Universe are as valid as your argument as they’re all special pleading Side: No
Oh dear I know you’re stupid and I attempted to cut you some slack , here we go again ..... What I’m accusing you of is ......... Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. Meaning of the term justify justify ˈdʒʌstɪfʌɪ/ verb 1. 1. show or prove to be right or reasonable."the person appointed has fully justified our confidence" You have not shown your claim to be right nor reasonable , so it remains ..... special pleading Side: No
You have not shown your claim to be right nor reasonable , so it remains ..... special pleading Well I'm working on the "right" part, but you won't let me go anywhere with my argument because you're being stubborn, and I did show it to be reasonable, but you haven't explained why my exception doesn't work. If God created the universe, then he would be exempt from the laws of physics BECAUSE HE CREATED THEM There I just showed my argument to be reasonable. Now, if you're going to call that "special pleading," tell me WHY you're not accepting my explanation of the exception Side: Yes
Well I'm working on the "right" part, At least that’s something but you won't let me go anywhere with my argument because you're being stubborn, I’m not , but you just want to shoehorn god into it without justifying it and I did show it to be reasonable, How so ? You still did not justify it why’s that ? Meaning of the term justify justify ˈdʒʌstɪfʌɪ/ verb 1. 1. show or prove to be right or reasonable."the person appointed has fully justified our confidence" You have not shown your claim to be right nor reasonable , so it remains ..... special pleading but you haven't explained why my exception doesn't work. I keep telling you why your refesual to acknowledge that is just childish If God created the universe, There you go yet again with your IF then he would be exempt from the laws of physics BECAUSE HE CREATED THEM Special pleading There I just showed my argument to be reasonable. You certainly did not if that’s the case you’re admitting the FSM , Odin or Banaitja are equally likely to have created the Universe Now, if you're going to call that "special pleading," tell me WHY you're not accepting my explanation of the exception So you agree it’s not special pleading to appeal to all the other proposed supernatural creators as an explanation? Side: No
I said ID people use it , glad you think it’s bullshit as your buddy Meyers uses it ..... So you agree Meyers is a bullshitter I agree that I haven't heard of it, and I agree that if someone makes one mistake, that doesn't discredit everything they say, or Stephen Hawking would be a bullshitter because he said stuff that goes into black holes disappears from existence, and he was proved to be incorrect. Must be a term you and Meyers came up with when you were licking his ass crack as he’s very familiar with the term Hmmmm nope This from an idiot like you who believes Jesus the zombie rose from the dead is hilarious Jesus is not a zombie, because zombies do not retain their previous personality, or free will. Also, Jesus didn't rise from the dead looking like a corpse, and he didn't try to eat anyone's brain I corrected you on this several times already , it’s your lot use the term “cosmic Evolution “ ...... Alright, fine. I'll use the term "the idea that all species descended from a single ancestor." Forget I even mentioned Darwinism, ok? I'm not the one who brought up cosmic evolution. you claimed he had many I said I had found one and that link didn't work, which isn't my fault. But I can prove that he was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington you liar https://www.biodiversitylibrary. prints a piece of bullshit in his own “journal “ and calls it peer reviewed ....you’re a dummy When did he print anything and call it peer-reviewed? Prove it. They haven’t seen any you dumb bastard , why not post your “evidence “up you thick fuck ? Maybe I would if you stopped calling me a "dumb bastard" and a "thick fuck" and a "prize fucking idiot" every 10 seconds. One-third of the world is Christian, and Catholicism is the largest denomination by far, so maybe try to not say shit like that about the 2.2 billion Christians currently alive? (Hmmm what an idea!) So the reason you lot cannot post “evidence” up is because scientists cannot understand it ..... What the hell is “outside their own disciplines “ oh you mean they don’t accept bullshit about the existence of supernatural entities and you want what’s hilariously called “ Christian scientists “ to give their part of the “ story “ .....got ya No, you actually don't got me, because that's not what I said. I guess I need to define "discipline" for you, you retard. It's "a branch of knowledge, usually one studied in higher education." Now, I asked a question and you dodged it - answer it you liar. Special pleading yet again As I explained, God is exempt from the laws/dimensions of our universe, BUT I EXPLAINED THE EXCEPTION, which - BY YOUR DEFINITION - means it's not special pleading, for the millionth time. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. I know. I justified the exception. Yet again, I repeat the same thing. Special pleading As I explained, God is exempt from the laws/dimensions of our universe, BUT I EXPLAINED THE EXCEPTION, which - BY YOUR DEFINITION - means it's not special pleading, for the millionth time. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. I know. I justified the exception. Yet again, I repeat the same thing. Side: Yes
I agree that I haven't heard of it, You said it was bullshit and I agree that if someone makes one mistake It’s not a “ mistake” it’s a term Meyers uses with others so you agree he’s a bullshitter , that doesn't discredit everything they say It certainly did when you thought I said it you hypocrite , or Stephen Hawking would be a bullshitter because he said stuff that goes into black holes disappears from existence, and he was proved to be incorrect. I couldn’t give a fuck about Stephen Hawkings , what a stupid lazy reply
Hmmmm nope Ok it was just the idiot Meyers so Jesus is not a zombie, He fits the criteria because zombies do not retain their previous personality, or free will. You know Zombies don’t exist ? Also, Jesus didn't rise from the dead looking like a corpse Yes he didn’t rise from the dead so he couldn’t have looked like a corpse , and he didn't try to eat anyone's brain Who does that ? . Alright, fine. I'll use the term "the idea that all species descended from a single ancestor." Forget I even mentioned Darwinism, ok? Coo I'm not the one who brought up cosmic evolution. You did actually I said I had found one and that link didn't work, Surprise , surprise which isn’t my fault Of course not But I can prove that he was published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington you liar How embarrassing for you and Meyers you obviously didn’t read how that panned out for Meyers did you ? https://www.biodiversitylibrary. When did he print anything and call it peer-reviewed? Prove it. You sent me the link to his “piece” you fucking idiot the other day and fled when I pointed out your error Maybe I would if you stopped calling me a "dumb bastard" and a "thick fuck" and a "prize fucking idiot" every 10 seconds. Stop behaving like a child then One-third of the world is Christian, and Catholicism is the largest denomination by far, so maybe try to not say shit like that about the 2.2 billion Christians currently alive? (Hmmm what an idea!) What are you on about ? No, you actually don't got me, because that's not what I said. I guess I need to define "discipline" for you, Here’s the lies you retard. But you abuse children its "a branch of knowledge, usually one studied in higher education." That rules you out Now, I asked a question and you dodged it What’s your question - answer it you liar. Stop abusing children please As I explained, God is exempt from the laws/dimensions of our universe, Special pleading BUT I EXPLAINED THE EXCEPTION, which - BY YOUR DEFINITION - means it's not special pleading, for the millionth time. You didn’t justify it you clown Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. I know. I justified the exception. You didn’t Yet again, I repeat the same thing. Special pleading Special pleading As I explained, God is exempt from the laws/dimensions of our universe, BUT I EXPLAINED THE EXCEPTION, which - BY YOUR DEFINITION - means it's not special pleading, for the millionth time. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. I know. I justified the exception. Yet again, I repeat Side: No
You said it was bullshit I said it sounded like your kind of bullshit you agree he’s a bullshitter Nope It certainly did when you thought I said it you hypocrite What are you babbling about you idiot liar? I couldn’t give a fuck about Stephen Hawkings , what a stupid lazy reply I was using an example that applies to the situation, because Stephen Hawking is crazy smart, and definitely not a bullshitter. He fits the criteria A zombie is specifically defined as "a corpse who is said to be revived from the dead," and Jesus does not fit the criteria, because a corpse is a "dead body, especially human," and Jesus wasn't dead because dead is defined as "no longer alive," and, under my hypothesis, Jesus was alive when he rose from the dead. You know Zombies don’t exist ? Yup Yes he didn’t rise from the dead Prove it Who does that ? Fictional zombies You did actually Nope, I brought up Darwinism. And, you know what, I decided to actually pull facts to combat your bullshit, and Darwinism is "the theory of evolution advanced by Charles Darwin" and cosmic evolution is "the study of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of energy, matter and life in the thinning and cooling universe" you pathological liar! How embarrassing for you and Meyers you obviously didn’t read how that panned out for Meyers did you ? Why don't you present evidence instead of making me investigate it myself? You sent me the link to his “piece” you fucking idiot the other day and fled when I pointed out your error 1. Could we maybe possibly stop with the profanity? 2. I accidentally sent you a broken link. It was a mistake 3. When you pointed it out, I admitted that maybe I messed up (since I can't visit the link myself - my computer blocks it) Stop behaving like a child then I mean... I'm legally a child, soo....... And I'm immaturely throwing curse words rapid-fire like you are What are you on about ? I'm on about you attacking an entire third of the world's religious beliefs, which - quite frankly - isn't exactly the best idea. Also, neither is implying that all 300 million Americans are liars (or whatever it is you're trying to say) Here’s the lies I'm not lying - that's NOT what I said. I DID NOT say that I was talking about denying the creationist movement. What I ACTUALLY said was (get ready for facts here) that scientists probably haven't looked into - or maybe even can't understand - evidence from outside their fields of study. I'm not calling scientists stupid, I'm just saying there's no reason that a physicist would understand the arguments present in cosmology. But you abuse children Hmmmm let's see..... I've never abused a child and - like I said - I denounce what the priests did. That rules you out Actually, I'm in an advanced international program at my school, so I think I'm getting higher education than you ever will. What’s your question When did Meyer ever print anything and call it "peer reviewed," like you said he did? You didn’t justify it you clown Instead of calling me names and tossing around pointless insults and profanity, how about you actually provide an argument against my justification of the exception? Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. Yes I know. Please stop repeating the same thing over and over and please start actually providing an argument that counters the one I provided. Side: Yes
I said it sounded like your kind of bullshit But it’s Meyers bullshit Nope You just agreed you idiot ..... read above What are you babbling about you idiot liar? Do try and keep up you peado , you stupidly claimed if I used the term “cosmic evolution “ it’s bullshit but when Meyers dies it you suck him off I was using an example that applies to the situation, because Stephen Hawking is crazy smart, and definitely not a bullshitter. What are you shitting about you cabbage ? A zombie is specifically defined as "a corpse who is said to be revived from the dead," and Jesus does not fit the criteria He does , because a corpse is a "dead body, especially human," and Jesus wasn't dead because dead is defined as "no longer alive, What a brain dead dummy you are ..... Jesus died and rose from the dead according to your Christian faith " and, under my hypothesis, Jesus was alive when he rose from the dead. So a live person rose from the ......dead 😂😂😂😂😂😂 I know you’re American but that’s stupidity at a different level Yup Prove it You just did it for me you idiot you said he was alive Fictional zombies Well done you Nope, Yep I brought up Darwinism. You mean Evolution And, you know what, I decided to actually pull facts to combat your bullshit, and Darwinism is "the theory of evolution advanced by Charles Darwin" and cosmic evolution is "the study of the many varied changes in the assembly and composition of energy, matter and life in the thinning and cooling universe" you pathological liar! But you said cosmic evolution was bullshit !!! Why don't you present evidence instead of making me investigate it myself? Why, you’re a Meyers butt boy 1. Could we maybe possibly stop with the profanity? When you quit the insults I may do likewise 2.&f I accidentally sent you a broken link. It was a mistake 3. When you pointed it out, I admitted that maybe I messed up (since I can't visit the link myself - my computer blocks it) Good opt out I'm legally a child, soo....... And I'm immaturely throwing curse words rapid-fire like you are Yes you set the whole scenario going I'm on about you attacking an entire third of the world's religious beliefs, which - quite frankly - isn't exactly the best idea. Also, neither is implying that all 300 million Americans are liars (or whatever it is you're trying to say) What are you on about im not lying - that's NOT what I said. Afraid you did I DID NOT say that I was talking about denying the creationist movement. What I ACTUALLY said was (get ready for facts here) that scientists probably haven't looked into - or maybe even can't understand - Haven’t looked into what ? Really ? The worlds top scientists would not understand what exactly ? evidence from outside their fields of study Name one piece of concrete “evidence “ bet you cannot ? . I'm not calling scientists stupid, I'm just saying there's no reason that a physicist would understand the arguments present in cosmology. Physical cosmology is studied by scientists such as Astronomers,Physicists and Philosophers making you wrong yet again , what you are referring to is pseudoscience as in religor mythological cosmology which is bullshit Hmmmm let's see..... I've never abused a child Hmmmm I don’t believe you and like I said - I denounce what the priests did.*g I doubt that Actually, I'm in an advanced international program at my school, so I think I'm getting higher education than you ever will Bible study no doubt , when you get a masters degree or two in Europe you might be up there ,as of now you have nothing except your American mouth What’s your question When did Meyer ever print anything and call it "peer reviewed," like you said he did? You sent me the link you idiot that’s 8 times I’ve told you this Instead of calling me names and tossing around pointless insults and profanity, how about you actually provide an argument against my justification of the exception? I sent you a definition of the word justify you idiot Yes I know. Please stop repeating the same thing over and over It’s necessary as you’re American “Christian “so it may take a while to sink in please start actually providing an argument that counters the one I provided. You’ve provided none yet Side: No
when Meyers dies it you suck him off I think you meant to say "when Meyers does it" and I'm actually straight, but maybe try not to be a homophobe you peado Prove it. What a brain dead dummy you are ..... Jesus died and rose from the dead according to your Christian faith You're the brain-dead dummy because he wasn't a corpse I know you’re American but that’s stupidity at a different level Yes a living person rose from the dead, because he came back to life. You're the one who's at a mind-blowing level of stupidity You mean Evolution Yes... the Darwinian theory of evolution... that's what I said But you said cosmic evolution was bullshit !!! No, I didn't. I said it sounded like bullshit, because I was too lazy to google the crap you were pulling from nowhere, but now that I have, it looks like I've exposed you as a liar yet again wow surprise. Why, you’re a Meyers butt boy 1. No I'm not - I'm straight and you're a disgusting homophobe 2. That doesn't matter to the debate When you quit the insults I may do likewise You started it Yes you set the whole scenario going Typo - I meant to say "I'm not immaturely throwing rapid-fire curse words like you are" The worlds top scientists would not understand what exactly ? I'm talking about all the world's scientists. And I just told you - "evidence from outside their fields of study" Physical cosmology is studied by scientists such as Astronomers,Physicists and Philosophers making you wrong yet again , what you are referring to is pseudoscience as in religor mythological cosmology which is bullshit religor is not a word Name one piece of concrete “evidence “ bet you cannot ? ok yes I can - DNA contains information that codes for the traits of all living beings, like the "language" of a cell. DNA is often compared to computer code, or to an instruction manual, both of which are designed by intelligent agents. How do you produce information like in DNA without someone or something intelligent to write the code? If you find a book somewhere on the street, you don't say "oh this must have come from random processes," but instead you assume it was written by a person. Hmmmm I don’t believe you Why not? Bible study no doubt , when you get a masters degree or two in Europe you might be up there ,as of now you have nothing except your American mouth Like I said - it's a public school so actually there's a lot of doubt lol. Just curious - how many degrees do you have? How advanced was your high school education? Did you even get one? What are you on about I just told you - I'm on about you attacking an entire third of the world's religious beliefs, which - quite frankly - isn't exactly the best idea. Also, neither is implying that all 300 million Americans are liars (or whatever it is you're trying to say) Physical cosmology is studied by scientists such as Astronomers,Physicists and Philosophers making you wrong yet again , what you are referring to is pseudoscience as in religor mythological cosmology which is bullshit Ok fine I meant like astronomy - the actual study of planets and their orbits and deep space and stuff - to clarify, I'm talking about what they do at NASA You sent me the link you idiot that’s 8 times I’ve told you this prove that Meyer called it peer-reviewed It’s necessary as you’re American “Christian “so it may take a while to sink in I actually understood the concept when I first googled it, thanks You’ve provided none yet Okay I'll tell you again (heavy sigh) - if God created the universe and all the laws within the universe, he would not be controlled by those laws or space-time dimensions, and wouldn't necessarily exist within the universe that he created, which is NOT special pleading, because I explained the exception. I'm asking you to explain why my explanation of the exception is unjustified. Side: Yes
when Meyers dies it you suck him off I think you meant to say "when Meyers does it" and I'm actually straight, but maybe try not to be a homophobe I’m not a “homophobe “ I’m cool with you being gay you peado Prove it. Prove your not , that’s your go to argument isn’t it ? You're the brain-dead dummy because he wasn't a corpse A corpse is a dead body you stupid idiot Jesus was put to death and rose from the dead this is the central tenet of Christian theology and Catholicism you idiot , so you’re now contradicting your own religion ..... as I guessed you’re not a Catholic nor a Christian Yes a living person rose from the dead, A living person rose from the dead 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 because he came back to life. That’s a clear demonstration of how stupid you are You're the one who's at a mind-blowing level of stupidity But you’re the one who thinks living people are actually dead but living yes ... the Darwinian theory of evolution... that's what I said No you didn’t , you used the term Darwinism and didn’t know what it meant until I explained it to you No, I didn't. I said it sounded like bullshit, because I was too lazy to google the crap you were pulling from nowhere, Pulling something from nowhere , how does one do that you clown ? but now that I have, it looks like I've exposed you as a liar yet again wow surprise. Ah denial now because you were caught yet again No I'm not - I'm straight and you're a disgusting homophobe You’re not , and hey I’m cool with it why are you pissed at your sexuality ? That doesn't matter to the debate It seems to to you You started it The very first insult was you calling me retarded and I warned you Imeant to say "I'm not immaturely throwing rapid-fire curse words like you are" Yetvyou keep doing it I'm talking about all the world's scientists. And I just told you - "evidence from outside their fields of study" Like what ? Give me some “evidence “ bet you won’t ? I’ve asked you this repeatedly, also why do you ignore every answer given as in I’ve supplied you with an answer on this and yet you’ve no defence religor is not a word I know , but a big child like you uses this excuse all the time to avoid answering yet another question like this , bet you won’t answer ok yes I can - DNA contains information that codes for the traits of all living beings, like the "language" of a cell. DNA is often compared to computer code, or to an instruction manual, both of which are designed by intelligent agents. No, there you go yet again with your illogical nonsense an instruction manual is indeed designed and we can prove it , now provide your proof for DNA as yet again you’re special pleading How do you produce information like in DNA without someone or something intelligent to write the code? Prove it , otherwise it’s special pleading If you find a book somewhere on the street, you don't say "oh this must have come from random processes," but instead you assume it was written by a person. Yes correct because we know how books come about and have evidence to back our claims up you have zero evidence and you’re usig the old worn tired watchmakers argument or teleological argument , you’re not very good at this are you ? Why not? Because you’re dishonest Like I said - it's a public school so actually there's a lot of doubt lol. What are you talking about Just curious - how many degrees do you have? More than 1 How advanced was your high school education? When I left secondary school I went to University and recieved my first degree Did you even get one? You cannot help being a nasty American can you ? - I'm on about you attacking an entire third of the world's religious beliefs, which - quite frankly - isn't exactly the best idea. Also, neither is implying that all 300 million Americans are liars (or whatever it is you're trying to say) I never said that and you just admit you don’t know what I’m trying to say Ok fine I meant like astronomy - the actual study of planets and their orbits and deep space and stuff - to clarify, I'm talking about what they do at NASA How is that outside their field of expertise if they work in those fields ? What evidence are you talking about ? Bet you cannot answer ? prove that Meyer called it peer-reviewed Here’s you claiming Meyers was peer reviewed you lying toad ..... I asked ......Where’s his peer reviewed papers regarding his claims ....... Your reply Ummm did you even try to find one?? bit.ly/MeyerPaper There you go proving you’re a liar and the link you gave is still invalid , then you sent me the piece below adding to your lies ,no doubt you will resort to more lies in an attempt to hide your obvious stupidity You said Meyers was peer reviewed and you are now back to lying , here’s the journal you sent me that you said he was peer reviewed in ........ BIO-Complexity is an open access journal published by the weirdly named Biologic Institute, a lame front for creation science. The journal "aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life". I actually understood the concept when I first googled it, thanks That’s progress for you Okay I'll tell you again (heavy sigh) - if God created the universe There’s that IF* special pleading again and all the laws within the universe, he would not be controlled by those laws or space-time dimensions, and wouldn't necessarily exist within the universe that he created, which is NOT special pleading, because I explained the exception. Yawn I'm asking you to explain why my explanation of the exception is unjustified. Because you have not justified it , also you totally ignored my reply to your answer as in ...... If we allow a god may have created the Universe which god is it out of the millions of proposed gods as each one is equally valid using your “reasoning “ Now let’s return to your only argument as in special pleading ..... Special pleading (or claiming that something is an overwhelming exception) is a logical fallacy asking for an exception to a rule to be applied to a specific case, without proper justification of why that case deserves an exemption. Usually this is because in order for an argument to work, a proponent needs to provide some way to get out of a logical inconsistency — in a lot of cases, this will be the fact that the argument contradicts past arguments or actions. Therefore, proponents introduce a "special case" or an exception to their rules. While this is acceptable in genuine special cases, it becomes a fallacy when a person doesn't adequately justify why the case is special. You have failed continuously to provide why your claim gets a special exemption , can you do so without once again special pleading bet you cannot ? Why is your case “special” ? Side: No
His arguments have all been shredded in the past Prove it the Kalam cosmological argument which is pathetic beyond words How is it pathetic? It's logical. Let's go through the kalam argument, since I was actually planning on using it. Let's start with the first statement - everything has a cause. Fair enough. Agreed? Side: Yes
Prove it You tube is also your friend the Kalam cosmological argument which is pathetic beyond words How is it pathetic? It’s special pleading thus fallacious It's logical. To half -wits , yes Let's go through the kalam argument, since I was actually planning on using it. Did you get Craig’s permission ? Let's start with the first statement - everything has a cause. End of argument , so you admit something created god ? Well done you , you defeated your own argument 👌☺️👏👏👏👏👏 Fair enough. Sure , you did say everything has a cause .... god had a cause 🙀👏👏👏👏👏👏 Agreed? 👌☺️👏👏👏 Side: No
End of argument , so you admit something created god ? For the millionth time - NO! NOTHING CREATED GOD BECAUSE GOD TRANSCENDS THE DIMENSION OF TIME AND DOESN'T NEED A CREATOR Maybe this will help you. See the attached link, and pls do me a favor and spare me the ranting about how retarded all Catholics are thanks buddy Side: Yes
But you just said everything had a cause you idiotic creature ..... You’re back to Special Pleading ......A Special Pleading fallacy is a fallacy wherein people create a rule or apply an existing rule to a situation and then proceed to make someone or something exempt from this rule without providing real justification for that exemption. A link from a creationist website go to fuck off , where did I say all Catholics are retards ? You’re not even a Catholic you prick , why the pretence ? Side: No
But you just said everything had a cause you idiotic creature ..... Now I see the misunderstanding. I meant to say that everything within our current universe has a cause You’re not even a Catholic you prick Yes I am actually pretence You mean pretense? I'm not making false or ambitious claims Side: Yes
Now I see the misunderstanding. No misunderstanding here you prick I quoted exactly what you said I meant to say that everything within our current universe has a cause Meaning god .... got ya Yes I am actually You’re not you idiot as no Catholic would have an affiliation with your go to evangelical sites pretence You mean pretense? No you retard I mean ....... pretence prɪˈtɛns/ noun 1. 1. an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true."his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well" You really are a prize idiot I'm not making false or ambitious claims It’s all you do you idiot Side: No
1
point
Your not It’s actually you’re not you thick cunt How is it possible that you accuse others of being idiots, Because like you they demonstrate their idiocy for all to see despite not understanding the basics of your own native language? You mean like you using “your not “ instead of “you’re not “ ? I was literally taught the difference between "your" and "you're" aged 10 you thick Nazi twit But yet you used “your not “ instead of “you’re not “ you thick commie cunt ......also I note you agree with your buddy on his confusion over the word pretence ......You’re a thick commie cunt Side: No
1
point
It’s actually you’re not you thick cunt That's a great idea brother. Pretend to be mad in order to avoid having to admit how stupid you are. I'm sure that reaction has brought you great success in life. Lol. EDIT: Oh, and I now see you've edited your initial post and corrected your hilarious mistake. Lol. What a fucking silly idiot you are. Side: Yes
That's a great idea brother. It’s not an “ idea “ it’s a correction of your stupidity Pretend to be mad Mad at what ? I’m amused at how upset you get in order to avoid having to admit how stupid you are. This coming from a thick cunt like you is amusing to say the least I'm sure that reaction has brought you great success in life. I’ve done pretty well so far normally by taking advantage of idiots like you Side: No
1
point
It’s not an “ idea “ it’s a correction of your stupidity Clearly it is an idea, because if your grammar is shit then you aren't going to be able to disguise it you impossibly stupid prick. The above sentence is a perfect example. Fuck off and die you stupid, big-mouthed neo-Nazi bottom feeder. Thank God you'll never find a girlfriend. Your genes will be out of the gene pool in a few decades and humanity will be all the better for it. Side: Yes
Clearly it is an idea, Still not you dummy because if your grammar is shit That’s why I corrected you ..... got ya then you aren't going to be able to disguise it you impossibly stupid prick. But you’re the one attempting to hide your stupidity The above sentence is a perfect example. Yes , glad you admit your stupidity Fuck off and die you stupid, Well comes to us all Adolf big-mouthed neo-Nazi bottom feeder. Fabulous insult Thank God you'll never find a girlfriend. I don’t want one I’m happily married , which means you’re still pulling your wire to animal porn Your genes will be out of the gene pool in a few decades and humanity will be all the better for it. Afraid not Adolf , so that really means you’re still pulling your wire 👌🙀😢😢😢😢😢 Side: No
1
point
1
point
Because like you they demonstrate their idiocy for all to see Brother, you made a grammar mistake which a 12 year old foreign student would struggle to make, and when it was pointed out to you your reaction was to correct the mistake and pretend it didn't happen. The only idiot on this forum, clearly, is you. Not only are you a complete, toilet-licking moron, but you don't have the integrity to admit your stupidity even when it is pointed out to you. Fuck off you complete waste of oxygen. Side: Yes
Brother, you made a grammar mistake which a 12 year old foreign student would struggle to make, and when it was pointed out to you your reaction was to correct the mistake and pretend it didn't happen. Brother, you invented a grammar mistake which a 12 year old foreign student would struggle to make, and when it was pointed out to you your reaction was to correct the mistake and pretend it didn't happen. The only idiot on this forum, clearly, is you. Incorrect as you see you in every debate on this site attacking anyone who corrects your bullshit Not only are you a complete, toilet-licking moron This from a thick cunt like you who is the regular site dummy is amusing , but you don't have the integrity to admit your stupidity even when it is pointed out to you. But I’m not the 9/11 truther that’s you buddy Fuck off you waste of oxygen. Ah that’s really ...... hurtful 🙀🙀🙀 Side: No
1
point
I would ask you if you understand English, but I think we already have established that you do not. Is this how you usually react when you get pulled over by the cops and busted for speeding? Do you call the cops thick cunts and insist they were the ones speeding? You are so much of an idiot it's just baffling. Side: Yes
I would ask you if you understand English, but I think we already have established that you do not. I would ask you if you understand English, but I think we already have established that you do not. Is this how you usually react when you get pulled over by the cops and busted for speeding? Do you call the cops neo Nazi bottom feeders and insist they were the ones speeding? You are so much of an idiot it's just baffling. Side: No
1
point
First of all, pulling out the "well you did this" argument just gets the debate off track and doesn't really prove anything relevant to the discussion. I don't support pedophilia in any of its forms. Neither does the Catholic Church. In September 2009, The Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases." 5% at most! That's a tiny percentage, even if you double - heck, even triple! - it to account for possible lying (which I don't think they are)! Side: Yes
First of all, pulling out the "well you did this" argument just gets the debate off track and doesn't really prove anything relevant to the discussion. Why do you keep doing it then ? I don't support pedophilia in any of its forms But yet you accuse me of being a Nazi without proof . Neither does the Catholic Church. It certainly does why the famous cover up then ? In September 2009, The Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases." So you’re using the Catholic Church to back your bullshit up 5% at most! That's a tiny percentage, even if you double - heck, even triple! - it to account for possible lying (which I don't think they are)! Read above and of course the church wouldn’t lie 😂😂😂 Side: No
I was perfectly civilized until you fired off the first insult in an attempt to act the big guy , you’ve no desire to debate, you don’t accept dictionary definitions for terms like magic , you claim there is no such word as pretence , you continuously deny using the very tactic you keep using as in the fallacy of special pleading You are possibly the most dishonest person on C D as your tactics are denial , lying and ignoring that which doesn’t fit your skewed worldview Side: No
Meaning god .... got ya Nope. God doesn't exist within our universe, since he created it. You’re not you idiot as no Catholic would have an affiliation with your go to evangelical sites Well, let's see... I attend a Catholic Mass every Sunday and I was Baptized into the Church and I'm about to be Confirmed under the Church, and I pray and believe in everything under the Profession of Faith prayer that we say every week so yeah I think I'm Catholic. No you retard I mean ....... pretence Well how come when I Googled "pretence" it didn't come up? You fucking, retarded idiot, useless, piece of shit, good-for-nothing idiot! (Just returning the favor of all the cursing you've been doing XD) Side: Yes
Nope. Yep God doesn't exist within our universe, since he created it. Special pleading Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. let's see... I attend a Catholic Mass every Sunday and I was Baptized into the Church and I'm about to be Confirmed under the Church, and I pray and believe in everything under the Profession of Faith prayer that we say every week so yeah I think I'm Catholic. But you’re a notorious liar , I don’t believe a word you say Well how come when I Googled "pretence" it didn't come up? What you really mean is Pretense did not come up when you googled but you’re a “Christian “so why not just attempt to lie your way out Yet again like the cowardly “Christian “ liar you are you lie in an attempt to avoid admitting your genetic stupidity ...... pretence prɪˈtɛns/ noun 1. 1. an attempt to make something that is not the case appear true."his anger is masked by a pretence that all is well" you fucking, retarded idiot, useless, piece of shit, good-for-nothing idiot! (Just returning the favor of all the cursing you've been doing XD) Jesus would love you wouldn’t he ? Side: No
Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. Yes, I know what it is now. But the important part of your definition is without justifying the exception but I did justify the exception, because under this wild guess, God created the universe, and therefore exists outside of it! But you’re a notorious liar , I don’t believe a word you say Really? I'm notorious? Meaning well-known by many people as a habitual liar? Hmmm I don't think so. I can provide proof that I attend Church if you want. In fact, I think you're a notorious liar because I'm still waiting on proof that Meyer and Craig are rejected by the scientific community. What you really mean is Pretense did not come up when you googled but you’re a “Christian “so why not just attempt to lie your way out Actually, I told the truth. Sorry buddy. Yet again like the cowardly “Christian “ liar you are you lie in an attempt to avoid admitting your genetic stupidity ...... Prove it. What "genetic stupidity" are you blabbering on about? Jesus would love you wouldn’t he ? You did it first, and yes - He loves all His children. Side: Yes
. Yes, I know what it is now. Watch , bet you do it again But the important part of your definition is without justifying the exception but I did justify the exception, because under this wild guess, God created the universe, and therefore exists outside of it! There you go ,again special pleading and circular “ reasoning “ all in one I'm notorious? Meaning well-known by many people as a habitual liar? Hmmm I don't think so. But again if you lie so freely I bet you’re known for it I can provide proof that I attend Church if you want. Considering you e provided zero proof for any of your claims I don’t that very much In fact, I think you're a notorious liar because I'm still waiting on proof that Meyer and Craig are rejected by the scientific community. I’m still waiting on proof that Meyers has a peer reviewed paper regarding his pseudoscience, so I take you haven’t read what the scientific community had to say about his dreadful book Darwin’s doubt ? If you want I will fill you in so you can attend to lie your way out as usual What you really mean is Pretense did not come up when you googled but you’re a “Christian “so why not just attempt to lie your way out Actually, I told the truth. Sorry buddy. More lies by you how pathetic . Prove it. What "genetic stupidity" are you blabbering on about? Your retardation You did it first, and yes - He loves all His children. Yes of course he would totally approve of your hypocrisy Side: No
Saying "we will eventually find evidence to disprove God" is arguing from a position of blind hope and ignorance, not facts. Also, the new evidence that we are currently finding is going in the opposite direction and supporting the idea of a God What evidence do you have that the creator of the universe is Mother Nature? Keep in mind, we're talking about the Creation of the universe and everything within it. Side: Yes
Exactly. Why would a god, who had to rest after 6 days of creating this TINY planet, go on to create trillions of stars and planets light years away, many of them would hold a huge number of THIS planet inside. He must have had to rest for months or years after building a bunch of THEM. Mother Nature is not a god, mother nature is the natural actions of minerals, gases, electrons, atoms … the building blocks of everything within the universe. We will find the answers if we don't all die fighting to prove which god is the ONLY one. Believing in an entity called a god is arguing from a position of blind hope … not facts. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Why would any architect or inventor do what they do? Because that's what they felt like doing. Except in this particular case there is no evidence of an inventor outside of your delusional, purposefully dishonest rhetoric. Not only are you making up myths about how the universe came into being, but you are making up further myths about why it came into being. Your words are just completely empty of any evidence to back them up. Side: Yes
1
point
Saying "we will eventually find evidence to disprove God" is arguing from a position of blind hope and ignorance, not facts. Wtf? Nobody needs to "disprove" something you haven't evidenced exists in the first place. You are crazy. Saying we will eventually find evidence which disproves that you are a serial rapist is arguing from a position of blind ignorance, not facts. Also, the new evidence that we are currently finding is going in the opposite direction and supporting the idea of a God Ahahahahaha! There is as much evidence for the tooth fairy as there is for God, you truly mad bastard. Side: No
1
point
In my 81 years I have looked for, and not found ANY evidence that ANY "god" exists. https://www.facebook.com/ Side: Yes
1
point
To my friend, outlaw: It isn't likely, but, I COULD outlive you. I'm in the process of moving, so, who knows, I may be your neighbor. In which case, I likely would not attend your funeral, but, if you'd send me a stamped, self addressed envelope, I WOULD write a nice letter saying how much I approved of it. You have a nice day. Side: Yes
Is this not true ????? Side: Yes
Okay first of all, you should have already explained that And it is true that Farrakhan is a bad man. He's anti-Semetic and pretty terrible. But that one man cannot represent ALL Muslims everywhere. That's absurd. And even if Ellison does sympathize with him, that doesn't represent all Dems. Besides, Ellison denounced "anti-semitism and bigotry in all its forms." To be fair, I've never heard of either of these guys before so I can't say for sure if they're in a significant relationship and I sure hope a US Rep isn't doing something like that, but even if he is that doesn't prove your point. Side: Yes
First of all you know nothing ! Side: No
Someone asked, what created the creator. This is a valid question. If a creator exists, then they must be material. Otherwise they obviously do not exist. To substantiate the assertion, "matter must be created", then this conundrum needs to be addressed. This will inevitably lead to further questioning. What created the creator's creator, what created the creator's creator's creator, etc etc. Ultimately we are always left scratching our heads, trying to make sense of the something from nothing principle. Side: No
2
points
The only reason you believe in the God you believe in is because of where you were born, who raised you, and the year you were born. You have no logical explanation for not believing in Zeus, Buddha, Shiva, Apollo, or any of the hundreds if not thousands of deities worshipped over time, yet you firmly believe you got it right despite no evidence proving so. Also, you earlier stated in a previous post that everything has a beginning. Which means, logically, the Creator you believe in did as well. You also stated that to make something from nothing you need God. Therefore the god you believe in should have been created by another, more powerful god, and so on. Slapping God at the beginning of existence doesn't work, no matter how you try to word it. Side: No
First of all, I don't have much reason for the specific name of my God, but that's besides the point. Right now, we're discussing the existence of a God. Slapping God at the beginning of existence doesn't work, no matter how you try to word it. Oh yeah? Watch this. The B.B. was the beginning of Time, because Einstein's theory of relativity shows us that you can't have the dimension of time without dimensions of space, and matter. Therefore, whatever caused the universe is transcendent of the universe, and is therefore timeless. Mic drop. Side: Yes
1
point
Your "mic drop" is extremely flawed. You don't even tie in God to it, either. I'll help you out; No studies support the idea that time did not exist before the Big Bang; you're very confused as to what the Big Bang even is, apparently. The singularity that may have been what spurred the Big Bang contained matter, all of the matter in the universe to be precise. There also isn't any evidence to suggest the Universe even had a "cause". Yes, you can fool yourself into believing you can logically deduce that since the Universe exists, there must have been a beginning to it; but without proof you're just speculating. You're quick to disagree when scientists who devote their lives to studying the origin of the universe speculate on how it most likely came to be, but when you do it it's completely fine because your parents taught you about God and they know everything about the Universe. When the reality is if you were born in Ancient Greece you would have lived your life believing in Zeus, Poseidon, Hades and the like; if you were born in Afghanistan you'd praise Allah until you died; If you were born in Cambodia you'd be worshipping the Buddhist Yidams right now; if I told you I was God right now there's the same amount of evidence that I am than that God itself exists. Mic drop. Side: No
you're very confused as to what the Big Bang even is, apparently Hmmm the beginning of the universe The singularity that may have been what spurred the Big Bang contained matter, all of the matter in the universe to be precise. That is correct. And Einstein's theory of relativity tells us that space and matter are directly linked. You cannot have time without space and matter. There also isn't any evidence to suggest the Universe even had a "cause". So causeless stuff just randomly happens? How? That doesn't even make sense. When the reality is if you were born in Ancient Greece you would have lived your life believing in Zeus, Poseidon, Hades and the like; if you were born in Afghanistan you'd praise Allah until you died; If you were born in Cambodia you'd be worshipping the Buddhist Yidams right now; if I told you I was God right now there's the same amount of evidence that I am than that God itself exists. Ok sure - so what? If I lived in the South in the 1800's I would probably believe in slavery. What's your point?? Side: Yes
listen 'Hypothetical' every individual has different opinions, different beliefs and different morals. The point of this argument is to try to make the people who think there is no God, question his existence and those who believe, question his existence as well because of the information provided by the other party. The con party has failed to make me question the existence of God because you haven't provided compelling evidence to make me see from your side, my father for most of his life has been a Muslim but now is a thorough Christian because of his many supernatural experiences that point to God and his holy son Jesus. I myself got curious as to how people can believe there is no god and i did some research on the big bang with an open mind, and it just seemed more plausible for a God to exist. However, if you keep your mind shut, eyes closed and keep saying 'there is no such thing as God there is no such thing as God' then you will go on your whole life believing there will never be a god because you never opened yourself to the possibility. even if there i no god right now (lets just pretend that there isn't), would it hurt to try and believe or just do some research on it? would it kill you to not shun something that wouldn't hurt? Side: Yes
|
