atheism and its follower are not bright

[turzovka]

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

So Turzo- how is this 'evidence of God'?

It is indisputable evidence for a supernatural manifestation. A child says a great miracle will occur 90 days in advance and says the exact day it will occur --- and it does! --- before 70,000 eye witnesses. That, is supernatual

Now if you cannot connect the dots from there to understand that supernatural event is surrounded by prayers and references to Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and the rosary and heaven and hell --- as all is well documented --- well then I can't begin to help you.

 

[Syriusly]

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

So Turzo- how is this 'evidence of God'?

It is indisputable evidence for a supernatural manifestation. A child says a great miracle will occur 90 days in advance and says the exact day it will occur --- and it does! --- before 70,000 eye witnesses. That, is supernatual

Now if you cannot connect the dots from there to understand that supernatural event is surrounded by prayers and references to Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary and the rosary and heaven and hell --- as all is well documented --- well then I can't begin to help you.

Look if you believe that is evidence of your 'god' then enjoy your 'evidence'.

But it is not actual evidence.

 

[Syriusly]

Ed is being an asshole; I said nothing of the sort.

Syrusly is unhappy I pinned him.

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another.

Ed is being an asshole; I said nothing of the sort.

Syrusly is unhappy I pinned him.

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another.

Okay I will politely say once again- you are full of crap.

Why would i be unhappy?

I have no need to believe in your fairy tale. I don't have any need to start threads attacking Christians and Jews and other people of faith for believing in their fairy tales- I am happy and content.

And I really enjoy pointing out your hypocrisy in this thread.


Jake: You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another

There is nothing polite about this thread Jake

Polite would be apologizing for starting it.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed is being an asshole; I said nothing of the sort.

Syrusly is unhappy I pinned him.

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another.

Liar, made in the image of God!
Your OP claimed Atheism believed that everything came from nothing, which is the essence of Creationism, not Atheism. Creationists insist that God is NOT a thing and that everything comes from God, therefore everything comes from no thing. You ran like a lying coward, made in the image of God, from my post that pointed that out.

If I am wrong then tell me what THING God is.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ed is being an asshole; I said nothing of the sort.

Syrusly is unhappy I pinned him.

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another.

Liar, made in the image of God!
Your OP claimed Atheism believed that everything came from nothing, which is the essence of Creationism, not Atheism. Creationists insist that God is NOT a thing and that everything comes from God, therefore everything comes from no thing. You ran like a lying coward, made in the image of God, from my post that pointed that out.

If I am wrong then tell me what THING God is.

You really do not understand terms and definitions that reasonable standards employ. Trot along, you little punk.

 

[PK1]

Theism is logical at the level of a 3-yr-old child. Santa Claus makes sense too at that age of intellectual development.

According to a person without logic or language to explore contradictions.

---
Were you punting, or are you able to explain your reference to "contradictions"?
.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Theism is logical at the level of a 3-yr-old child. Santa Claus makes sense too at that age of intellectual development.

According to a person without logic or language to explore contradictions.

---
Were you punting, or are you able to explain your reference to "contradictions"?
.

You have neither the ability nor the logic nor the language to explore contradictions.

Your brain does not work well.

Give us an example to show I am wrong about atheists and thinking ability.

 

[GaryDog]

If you're going to kick off a thread by insulting the intelligence of a whole class of people, maybe learn a thing or two about spelling, punctuation and sentence structure first.

Just a thought, OP.

 

[PK1]

I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

---
In psychology, we call that "confirmation bias", i.e., cherry picking information (not necessarily evidence) to support your pre-existing beliefs.

In science, to avoid that, we compare null hypotheses with alternative hypotheses that may provide better predictions or explanations.

For example, it was once thought that a "god" threw lightning bolts, but we now have better explanations.
If we were able to go back to ancient time and show people a TV with someone on its screen claiming to be "God", you would likely have a 100% rate of suckers.
.

 

[PK1]

Theism is logical at the level of a 3-yr-old child. Santa Claus makes sense too at that age of intellectual development.

According to a person without logic or language to explore contradictions.

---
Were you punting, or are you able to explain your reference to "contradictions"?
.

You have neither the ability nor the logic nor the language to explore contradictions.

Your brain does not work well.

Give us an example to show I am wrong about atheists and thinking ability.

---
So, you punted. You cannot explain what "contradiction" you are talking about.
.

 

[PK1]

Something did not come from nothing

Well, what THING is GOD?
And if God is not a thing, then it is Creationism that believes everything came from nothing!!!!!

Dear edthecynic
Depending on the context
God can either mean Nature itself or the source of all Nature Life Universal laws.

If you are nontheistic I would guess you would more likely relate to God as meaning the total sum of all knowledge laws energy and forces in existence.

Ie what is the collective ultimate absolute greatest of all.

Do we agree that whatever is the highest of all is the equivalent of what people mean by God, whether we use secular nontheist terms or if we personify these forces or source of life into a deified figure. And because there are multiple facets and manifestations of this life energy and laws in the universe, then ppl use or attach different names for God to specific aspects.

Like God as love or good will to all.
God as wisdom or truth.
God as nature or life.
God as creation, creator or universal laws.

Are you okay with saying that Any of these faith based reflections is still pointing to the one source that ppl refer to as God for any or all of these, individually or collectively.

You make a good case for the rationality of Ignosticism.
.

When I looked up Ignosticism it seems to be the opposite: it is saying there is no meaning of God that can be established, while I am saying that ALL meanings of God can be included. That God has infinite meanings.

---
In philosophy (ontology), it is necessary to conceptualize & define some "thing/entity" clearly enough so multiple participants understand what is being referred to.
What is "God" or "gods"?
To have multiple definitions or ideas about the same entity is counter productive, to say the least.

Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.
.

 

[HenryBHough]

Come to grips with it, Jake.

You're giving Christianity a bad name.

 

[turzovka]

I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

---
In psychology, we call that "confirmation bias", i.e., cherry picking information (not necessarily evidence) to support your pre-existing beliefs.

In science, to avoid that, we compare null hypotheses with alternative hypotheses that may provide better predictions or explanations.

For example, it was once thought that a "god" threw lightning bolts, but we now have better explanations.
If we were able to go back to ancient time and show people a TV with someone on its screen claiming to be "God", you would likely have a 100% rate of suckers.
.

Cherry picking what? One piece of evidence for the supernatural? How many do you require before you and science come to some logical conclusion the supernatural is the only reasonable answer for said manifestations? I am forever waiting for a plausible counter-explanation for these events witnessed by thousands, sometimes filmed, and most highly documented.

And to refer to a lightning bolt story that was used as an explanation some centuries ago and then try to compare our belief in modern day miracles as no more valid or plausible --- please!! That is insulting and inane.

 

[emilynghiem]

Something did not come from nothing

Well, what THING is GOD?
And if God is not a thing, then it is Creationism that believes everything came from nothing!!!!!

Dear edthecynic
Depending on the context
God can either mean Nature itself or the source of all Nature Life Universal laws.

If you are nontheistic I would guess you would more likely relate to God as meaning the total sum of all knowledge laws energy and forces in existence.

Ie what is the collective ultimate absolute greatest of all.

Do we agree that whatever is the highest of all is the equivalent of what people mean by God, whether we use secular nontheist terms or if we personify these forces or source of life into a deified figure. And because there are multiple facets and manifestations of this life energy and laws in the universe, then ppl use or attach different names for God to specific aspects.

Like God as love or good will to all.
God as wisdom or truth.
God as nature or life.
God as creation, creator or universal laws.

Are you okay with saying that Any of these faith based reflections is still pointing to the one source that ppl refer to as God for any or all of these, individually or collectively.

You make a good case for the rationality of Ignosticism.
.

When I looked up Ignosticism it seems to be the opposite: it is saying there is no meaning of God that can be established, while I am saying that ALL meanings of God can be included. That God has infinite meanings.

---
In philosophy (ontology), it is necessary to conceptualize & define some "thing/entity" clearly enough so multiple participants understand what is being referred to.
What is "God" or "gods"?
To have multiple definitions or ideas about the same entity is counter productive, to say the least.

Ignosticism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.
.

Dear PK1 why this assumption that multiple meanings makes it void ? Why?

Try defining music. Some ppl don't think rap is music. Some say electronic rock isn't music. We may not agree what counts as music, but the term music has meaning.

What about art?
Everyone I know has totally divergent concepts of what is art or isn't.

Do we need to agree on rules or morals to know we're taking about the same concepts?

 

[edthecynic]

Ed is being an asshole; I said nothing of the sort.

Syrusly is unhappy I pinned him.

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another.

Liar, made in the image of God!
Your OP claimed Atheism believed that everything came from nothing, which is the essence of Creationism, not Atheism. Creationists insist that God is NOT a thing and that everything comes from God, therefore everything comes from no thing. You ran like a lying coward, made in the image of God, from my post that pointed that out.

If I am wrong then tell me what THING God is.

You really do not understand terms and definitions that reasonable standards employ. Trot along, you little punk.

I understand that energy is a THING and a God is NOT a THING, so when science says that the universe is energy in all its forms they are NOT saying the universe came from nothing exploding as your OP dishonestly claims. That is a lie of a Creationist created in the image of God.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ed is being an asshole; I said nothing of the sort.

Syrusly is unhappy I pinned him.

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another.

Liar, made in the image of God!
Your OP claimed Atheism believed that everything came from nothing, which is the essence of Creationism, not Atheism. Creationists insist that God is NOT a thing and that everything comes from God, therefore everything comes from no thing. You ran like a lying coward, made in the image of God, from my post that pointed that out.

If I am wrong then tell me what THING God is.

You really do not understand terms and definitions that reasonable standards employ. Trot along, you little punk.

I understand that energy is a THING and a God is NOT a THING, so when science says that the universe is energy in all its forms they are NOT saying the universe came from nothing exploding as your OP dishonestly claims. That is a lie of a Creationist created in the image of God.

See, I told you did not have the terms and definitions to explain your nonsense. You are simply talking in the mirror.

 

[edthecynic]

Ed is being an asshole; I said nothing of the sort.

Syrusly is unhappy I pinned him.

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another.

Liar, made in the image of God!
Your OP claimed Atheism believed that everything came from nothing, which is the essence of Creationism, not Atheism. Creationists insist that God is NOT a thing and that everything comes from God, therefore everything comes from no thing. You ran like a lying coward, made in the image of God, from my post that pointed that out.

If I am wrong then tell me what THING God is.

You really do not understand terms and definitions that reasonable standards employ. Trot along, you little punk.

I understand that energy is a THING and a God is NOT a THING, so when science says that the universe is energy in all its forms they are NOT saying the universe came from nothing exploding as your OP dishonestly claims. That is a lie of a Creationist created in the image of God.

See, I told you did not have the terms and definitions to explain your nonsense. You are simply talking in the mirror.

No I have simplified the definitions so you have no wiggle room!
Either your God is a thing or your God is nothing. Since Creationists insist God is not a thing then it is Creationism that claims everything came from nothing. Your inability to identify what THING exactly is God proves I am right!!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ed is being an asshole; I said nothing of the sort.

Syrusly is unhappy I pinned him.

Now that we are all out in the open, let's be polite to one another.

Liar, made in the image of God!
Your OP claimed Atheism believed that everything came from nothing, which is the essence of Creationism, not Atheism. Creationists insist that God is NOT a thing and that everything comes from God, therefore everything comes from no thing. You ran like a lying coward, made in the image of God, from my post that pointed that out.

If I am wrong then tell me what THING God is.

You really do not understand terms and definitions that reasonable standards employ. Trot along, you little punk.

I understand that energy is a THING and a God is NOT a THING, so when science says that the universe is energy in all its forms they are NOT saying the universe came from nothing exploding as your OP dishonestly claims. That is a lie of a Creationist created in the image of God.

See, I told you did not have the terms and definitions to explain your nonsense. You are simply talking in the mirror.

No I have simplified the definitions so you have no wiggle room!
Either your God is a thing or your God is nothing. Since Creationists insist God is not a thing then it is Creationism that claims everything came from nothing. Your inability to identify what THING exactly is God proves I am right!!!!!

You have misdefined the terms, and that you don't get to do. You live in a rational world with the rest of us, so you get to use the standard terms and definitions, or you fail.

 

[edthecynic]

Liar, made in the image of God!
Your OP claimed Atheism believed that everything came from nothing, which is the essence of Creationism, not Atheism. Creationists insist that God is NOT a thing and that everything comes from God, therefore everything comes from no thing. You ran like a lying coward, made in the image of God, from my post that pointed that out.

If I am wrong then tell me what THING God is.

You really do not understand terms and definitions that reasonable standards employ. Trot along, you little punk.

I understand that energy is a THING and a God is NOT a THING, so when science says that the universe is energy in all its forms they are NOT saying the universe came from nothing exploding as your OP dishonestly claims. That is a lie of a Creationist created in the image of God.

See, I told you did not have the terms and definitions to explain your nonsense. You are simply talking in the mirror.

No I have simplified the definitions so you have no wiggle room!
Either your God is a thing or your God is nothing. Since Creationists insist God is not a thing then it is Creationism that claims everything came from nothing. Your inability to identify what THING exactly is God proves I am right!!!!!

You have misdefined the terms, and that you don't get to do. You live in a rational world with the rest of us, so you get to use the standard terms and definitions, or you fail.

I have not misdefined anything.

Let's start with this simple question.
Is God a THING?
It is a yes or no answer. Saying I lack understanding is not an honest answer.

 

[JakeStarkey]