Confirmation Bias; Why Atheists cant see the Evidence for God

[MaxGrit]

There's a really good book. A bit hardcore, but it's solid logic.

New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy Paperback – June 29, 2010
by Robert J. Spitzer (Author)

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow, OK, let me try to more concise, though I do get the feeling from that response that you really are not looking for an explanation of anything, just more opportunity to posture. But I will give it a shot for the hell of it.

1) What time is as we understand it, basics:
At some point the flow of time began and a physical universe is a necessary part of that flow as time itself is only manifested as objects interact and change in relation to each other. Comparing a clock to a moving object for example is a ratio of a standard rate of change to a nonstandardized rate of change.

You follow that so far?

2) Why the initation of the flow of time cannot be from random event:
Now for the beginning of a new universe to happen 'randomly' it has to occur within the flow of time and space, not necessarily as we know it but time and space of some sort. But this only kicks the can back down the road a bit. The flow of time obviously did not start if there is a random event that occurred preceding an event. So at some point when time itself started with the prior universe, (or Branes or whatever started them at some point back the flow of time started) and so there was no chance for time to start by a random event.

Still with me?

3) This means a pre-existing criteria existed that initiated the flow of time.
So if it wasn't random, then there were pre-existing conditions that initiated time flow. That criteria cannot require a flow of time to start time itself. This calls for some kind of intelligence that has always had this will or intent to start time. All events are either random in cause or meet a criteria of some sort and thus are 'decided' to be brought into being. Since it cannot be random, that only leaves intelligent decision to initiate time.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't I am wasting my time with you. At least you could start reading up on the topic yourself. But atheists today don't even realize what they are talking about when they compare the Creator to Zeus for instance. These are totally different kinds of concepts that unfortunately the same word is used for.

You assume that time had a beginning. I don't know how you can assume that.

It is not an assumption, and I gave reasons for it.

So you trolling now too?

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

You assume the object does not exist, and therefore cannot see it, thus conclude it must not exist - classic conformation bias.

 

[MaxGrit]

Wow, OK, let me try to more concise, though I do get the feeling from that response that you really are not looking for an explanation of anything, just more opportunity to posture. But I will give it a shot for the hell of it.

1) What time is as we understand it, basics:
At some point the flow of time began and a physical universe is a necessary part of that flow as time itself is only manifested as objects interact and change in relation to each other. Comparing a clock to a moving object for example is a ratio of a standard rate of change to a nonstandardized rate of change.

You follow that so far?

2) Why the initation of the flow of time cannot be from random event:
Now for the beginning of a new universe to happen 'randomly' it has to occur within the flow of time and space, not necessarily as we know it but time and space of some sort. But this only kicks the can back down the road a bit. The flow of time obviously did not start if there is a random event that occurred preceding an event. So at some point when time itself started with the prior universe, (or Branes or whatever started them at some point back the flow of time started) and so there was no chance for time to start by a random event.

Still with me?

3) This means a pre-existing criteria existed that initiated the flow of time.
So if it wasn't random, then there were pre-existing conditions that initiated time flow. That criteria cannot require a flow of time to start time itself. This calls for some kind of intelligence that has always had this will or intent to start time. All events are either random in cause or meet a criteria of some sort and thus are 'decided' to be brought into being. Since it cannot be random, that only leaves intelligent decision to initiate time.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't I am wasting my time with you. At least you could start reading up on the topic yourself. But atheists today don't even realize what they are talking about when they compare the Creator to Zeus for instance. These are totally different kinds of concepts that unfortunately the same word is used for.

You assume that time had a beginning. I don't know how you can assume that.

Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic):

If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.

That looks like a weak argument. Why would I expect to self-know that time had a beginning?

Anyways, look up why it must be that time has a beginning.

Yes, the infinite regression fallacy is googleable.

LoL Jim. It's a weak argument because it's based on an informal logical fallacy.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)
Arguments from self-knowing take the form:

If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.

In practice these arguments are often fallacious and rely on the veracity of the supporting premise. For example the argument that If I had just sat on a wild porcupine then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore I did not just sit on a wild porcupine is probably not a fallacy and depends entirely on the veracity of the leading proposition that supports it."

 

[JimBowie1958]

Wow, OK, let me try to more concise, though I do get the feeling from that response that you really are not looking for an explanation of anything, just more opportunity to posture. But I will give it a shot for the hell of it.

1) What time is as we understand it, basics:
At some point the flow of time began and a physical universe is a necessary part of that flow as time itself is only manifested as objects interact and change in relation to each other. Comparing a clock to a moving object for example is a ratio of a standard rate of change to a nonstandardized rate of change.

You follow that so far?

2) Why the initation of the flow of time cannot be from random event:
Now for the beginning of a new universe to happen 'randomly' it has to occur within the flow of time and space, not necessarily as we know it but time and space of some sort. But this only kicks the can back down the road a bit. The flow of time obviously did not start if there is a random event that occurred preceding an event. So at some point when time itself started with the prior universe, (or Branes or whatever started them at some point back the flow of time started) and so there was no chance for time to start by a random event.

Still with me?

3) This means a pre-existing criteria existed that initiated the flow of time.
So if it wasn't random, then there were pre-existing conditions that initiated time flow. That criteria cannot require a flow of time to start time itself. This calls for some kind of intelligence that has always had this will or intent to start time. All events are either random in cause or meet a criteria of some sort and thus are 'decided' to be brought into being. Since it cannot be random, that only leaves intelligent decision to initiate time.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't I am wasting my time with you. At least you could start reading up on the topic yourself. But atheists today don't even realize what they are talking about when they compare the Creator to Zeus for instance. These are totally different kinds of concepts that unfortunately the same word is used for.

You assume that time had a beginning. I don't know how you can assume that.

Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic):

If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.

That looks like a weak argument. Why would I expect to self-know that time had a beginning?

Anyways, look up why it must be that time has a beginning.

Yes, the infinite regression fallacy is googleable.

LoL Jim. It's a weak argument because it's based on an informal logical fallacy.

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic)
Arguments from self-knowing take the form:

If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.
If P were false then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be false.

In practice these arguments are often fallacious and rely on the veracity of the supporting premise. For example the argument that If I had just sat on a wild porcupine then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore I did not just sit on a wild porcupine is probably not a fallacy and depends entirely on the veracity of the leading proposition that supports it."

Edited out. I had to go back through the thread to understand what the discussion was, Thought you were saying my assertion that time had a beginning was self-knowing.

My apologies if any offense was given.

 

[NoNukes]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

You assume the object does not exist, and therefore cannot see it, thus conclude it must not exist - classic conformation bias.

Just because a fantasy is real for you does not make it real to everyone. God does not exist for everyone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The believers accuse nonbelievers of bias and yet fail to see their own.

Classic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

You assume the object does not exist, and therefore cannot see it, thus conclude it must not exist - classic conformation bias.

Just because a fantasy is real for you does not make it real to everyone. God does not exist for everyone.

The Creator either exists or does not, hence you reveal a post-modern relativistic view of Truth and Reality in your comment.

The Creator is not a fantasy no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim. There are solid reasons given for the belief that there is a Creator, mush of which goes back to ancient Greek philosophy, hence it cannot be irrational as it was derived rationally, nor can it be simply the product of Judeo-Christian tradition since it predates Christianity and no Jews would have submitted God to the verdict of human reason at that time.

You simply repeat your pre-determined conclusions as if the repetition proves something in and of itself.

It does not, roflmao.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The believers accuse nonbelievers of bias and yet fail to see their own.

Classic.

I have repeatedly given reason and fact to support my claims and you respond with half-baked questions you could have answered yourself easily had you tried, and a mishmash of attempted humor and repeated unsupported assertions that demonstrate and prove nothing at all other than that you have already made up and closed you mind on this topic.

For you, there being no God is an item of faith of your secular naturalism, a 'leap of Faith' into the Void.

No wonder less than 2% of the world agrees with you.

 

[Malamute]

To me an atheist is like someone looking at a beautiful painting and seeing nothing but splashes of paint of various colors but not able to feel the art. There can be more than just the physical world, are we just a collection of molecules and that's it?

 

[ricechickie]

It is not an assumption, and I gave reasons for it.

So you trolling now too?

No. Discussing. I'm sorry if you dislike being questioned.

Your reasons is that when the universe changed from nothing to something, only then could time begin, as objects could exist and change, showing the passage of time.

The change from something to nothing is a huge change, and might have taken an instant, yet that instant would have been measurable time.

 

[NoNukes]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

You assume the object does not exist, and therefore cannot see it, thus conclude it must not exist - classic conformation bias.

Just because a fantasy is real for you does not make it real to everyone. God does not exist for everyone.

The Creator either exists or does not, hence you reveal a post-modern relativistic view of Truth and Reality in your comment.

The Creator is not a fantasy no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim. There are solid reasons given for the belief that there is a Creator, mush of which goes back to ancient Greek philosophy, hence it cannot be irrational as it was derived rationally, nor can it be simply the product of Judeo-Christian tradition since it predates Christianity and no Jews would have submitted God to the verdict of human reason at that time.

You simply repeat your pre-determined conclusions as if the repetition proves something in and of itself.

It does not, roflmao.

You believe in something that you cannot prove to people who do not believe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

You assume the object does not exist, and therefore cannot see it, thus conclude it must not exist - classic conformation bias.

Just because a fantasy is real for you does not make it real to everyone. God does not exist for everyone.

The Creator either exists or does not, hence you reveal a post-modern relativistic view of Truth and Reality in your comment.

The Creator is not a fantasy no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim. There are solid reasons given for the belief that there is a Creator, mush of which goes back to ancient Greek philosophy, hence it cannot be irrational as it was derived rationally, nor can it be simply the product of Judeo-Christian tradition since it predates Christianity and no Jews would have submitted God to the verdict of human reason at that time.

You simply repeat your pre-determined conclusions as if the repetition proves something in and of itself.

It does not, roflmao.

You believe in something that you cannot prove to people who do not believe.

Since when has that been a test of Truth?

So you think we cant consider the Lunar Landings a FACT because there are five times as many people that deny that the lunar landings occurred than deny the existence of God?

You cant have it reasonably both ways. If the existence of God is questionable because not EVERY PERSON is compelled to believe it, then nothing can be believed because there are wacko fringe elements on every topic.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is not an assumption, and I gave reasons for it.

So you trolling now too?

No. Discussing. I'm sorry if you dislike being questioned.

Your reasons is that when the universe changed from nothing to something, only then could time begin, as objects could exist and change, showing the passage of time.

The change from something to nothing is a huge change, and might have taken an instant, yet that instant would have been measurable time.

But what can exist BEFORE the beginning of time itself? Only something that exists independent of time and space. That Object is the Creator. Only an eternal and assertive Will could have made the appearance of our universe initiate prior to the flow of time.

 

[NoNukes]

The luna

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

You assume the object does not exist, and therefore cannot see it, thus conclude it must not exist - classic conformation bias.

Just because a fantasy is real for you does not make it real to everyone. God does not exist for everyone.

The Creator either exists or does not, hence you reveal a post-modern relativistic view of Truth and Reality in your comment.

The Creator is not a fantasy no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim. There are solid reasons given for the belief that there is a Creator, mush of which goes back to ancient Greek philosophy, hence it cannot be irrational as it was derived rationally, nor can it be simply the product of Judeo-Christian tradition since it predates Christianity and no Jews would have submitted God to the verdict of human reason at that time.

You simply repeat your pre-determined conclusions as if the repetition proves something in and of itself.

It does not, roflmao.

You believe in something that you cannot prove to people who do not believe.

Since when has that been a test of Truth?

So you think we cant consider the Lunar Landings a FACT because there are five times as many people that deny that the lunar landings occurred than deny the existence of God?

You cant have it reasonably both ways. If the existence of God is questionable because not EVERY PERSON is compelled to believe it, then nothing can be believed because there are wacko fringe elements on every topic.

Not believing in God is not a wacko fringe element. It is not believing in blind faith. There is always the possibility that the lunar landings did not occur, you have to be open to things that you do not believe in. I believe that they did, because too many people would have had to keep quiet about it if they did not occur. Religion is based on superstition, on explaining things that people did not know about. I find it a weakness in humans that they still need religion and cannot go on about their lives without believing in a hereafter, heaven, a wonderful pixie in the sky. It is a weakness, a crutch. That is my opinion, I do not make threads about people not believing in what I believe. It is pathetic to do so.

 

[ricechickie]

But what can exist BEFORE the beginning of time itself? Only something that exists independent of time and space. That Object is the Creator. Only an eternal and assertive Will could have made the appearance of our universe initiate prior to the flow of time.

The point being, I don't think that time ever had a beginning.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The luna

WTF? lol

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

You assume the object does not exist, and therefore cannot see it, thus conclude it must not exist - classic conformation bias.

Just because a fantasy is real for you does not make it real to everyone. God does not exist for everyone.

The Creator either exists or does not, hence you reveal a post-modern relativistic view of Truth and Reality in your comment.

The Creator is not a fantasy no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim. There are solid reasons given for the belief that there is a Creator, mush of which goes back to ancient Greek philosophy, hence it cannot be irrational as it was derived rationally, nor can it be simply the product of Judeo-Christian tradition since it predates Christianity and no Jews would have submitted God to the verdict of human reason at that time.

You simply repeat your pre-determined conclusions as if the repetition proves something in and of itself.

It does not, roflmao.

You believe in something that you cannot prove to people who do not believe.

Since when has that been a test of Truth?

So you think we cant consider the Lunar Landings a FACT because there are five times as many people that deny that the lunar landings occurred than deny the existence of God?

You cant have it reasonably both ways. If the existence of God is questionable because not EVERY PERSON is compelled to believe it, then nothing can be believed because there are wacko fringe elements on every topic.

Not believing in God is not a wacko fringe element.

Sure it is. More people believe in Big Foot than buy atheist nonsense regarding God.

It is not believing in blind faith.

No, atheism ignores solid evidence, arguments and FACTs that establish the existence of a Creator.

There is always the possibility that the lunar landings did not occur, you have to be open to things that you do not believe in.

No, there is not. The lunar landings happened and millions aw it live on TV. That you give any credit to it having not happened just shows what a fringe lunatic you are.,

I believe that they did, because too many people would have had to keep quiet about it if they did not occur. Religion is based on superstition, on explaining things that people did not know about.

No, it is not. Religion varies from one to the next, some are hardly what one might normally call a religion, like Scientology or Atheism.

I find it a weakness in humans that they still need religion and cannot go on about their lives without believing in a hereafter, heaven, a wonderful pixie in the sky. It is a weakness, a crutch. That is my opinion,

You uninformed, ignorant and biased opinion, sure.

I do not make threads about people not believing in what I believe. It is pathetic to do so.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But what can exist BEFORE the beginning of time itself? Only something that exists independent of time and space. That Object is the Creator. Only an eternal and assertive Will could have made the appearance of our universe initiate prior to the flow of time.

The point being, I don't think that time ever had a beginning.

It is a scientific and mathematical FACT that you are wrong.

 

[Hollie]

The luna

WTF? lol

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

You assume the object does not exist, and therefore cannot see it, thus conclude it must not exist - classic conformation bias.

Just because a fantasy is real for you does not make it real to everyone. God does not exist for everyone.

The Creator either exists or does not, hence you reveal a post-modern relativistic view of Truth and Reality in your comment.

The Creator is not a fantasy no matter how many times you make that unsupported claim. There are solid reasons given for the belief that there is a Creator, mush of which goes back to ancient Greek philosophy, hence it cannot be irrational as it was derived rationally, nor can it be simply the product of Judeo-Christian tradition since it predates Christianity and no Jews would have submitted God to the verdict of human reason at that time.

You simply repeat your pre-determined conclusions as if the repetition proves something in and of itself.

It does not, roflmao.

You believe in something that you cannot prove to people who do not believe.

Since when has that been a test of Truth?

So you think we cant consider the Lunar Landings a FACT because there are five times as many people that deny that the lunar landings occurred than deny the existence of God?

You cant have it reasonably both ways. If the existence of God is questionable because not EVERY PERSON is compelled to believe it, then nothing can be believed because there are wacko fringe elements on every topic.

Not believing in God is not a wacko fringe element.

Sure it is. More people believe in Big Foot than buy atheist nonsense regarding God.

It is not believing in blind faith.

No, atheism ignores solid evidence, arguments and FACTs that establish the existence of a Creator.

"No, atheism ignores solid evidence, arguments and FACTs that establish the existence of a Creator... because I say so"

There. Fixed that for ya'.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The believers accuse nonbelievers of bias and yet fail to see their own.

Classic.

I have repeatedly given reason and fact to support my claims and you respond with half-baked questions you could have answered yourself easily had you tried, and a mishmash of attempted humor and repeated unsupported assertions that demonstrate and prove nothing at all other than that you have already made up and closed you mind on this topic.

For you, there being no God is an item of faith of your secular naturalism, a 'leap of Faith' into the Void.

No wonder less than 2% of the world agrees with you.

You have given opinions and theories.

And btw I have never said that there isn;t a supreme being only that we have no proof of its existence. IF there is a supreme being then IMO it is not the god portrayed in the bible.

The simple fact is that we just don't know and most likely will never know.

But you are so sure there is that you cannot argue from the position that there isn't.

The very definition of confirmation bias.