Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Hollie]

Presuppositions are a hard thing to fight off when you're looking at evidence. That is true and the same can be said for naturalism but it should be only the evidence to see which explanation best fits the evidence after all is that not what science is ?

That is why I pointed out what I did earlier the evidence your side creates does not fit the theory.

So, I suppose we're back to you insisting that atheistic evilutionist scientists are either wrong, deluded or conspiring to further a conspiracy regarding the many fields of science that point to an ancient universe.

I believe some are working towards their Ideological views and others are simply victims of their presuppositions. I would not say it is a conspiracy and I know why you and NP are trying to promote that appearance. If you want to continue this discussion focus on the evidence not personal attacks shall we ?

You routinely cut and paste from fundamentalist christian creationist websites. Those charlatans define their arguments with a predefined conclusion.

We've repeatedly seen that the "quotes" you mine from these sites are falsified, altered, or blatantly fraudulent. It's comical that you would want to lecture anyone regarding facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then why are you bringing up assumptions with regards to me? I am merely responding to the OP, which is chalk full of assumptions. You have no idea what my assumptions are. You merely assume.

The dishonesty with you is your inability to see your own bias here. You agree with the conclusion of the OP, that god exists, so simply assume that the argumentation and methods of inference are correct, when they are not. This assumption is a false one.

I think he makes valid points I don't agree with everything he states as you can see I have given my opinions on this with him.

He believes God Exists as do I but he is not willing to say God is a personal God and that is where we part ways.

You see you need physical evidence to believe in God but you don't need physical evidence to believe naturalism is the cause of all we see. These explanations of naturalism are only opinions not physical evidence.

I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.

Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.

 

[Hollie]

I have told you many times before I have no clue how old the earth is and it is futile do to so.

You have written previously that you believe the planet is somewhere between 6k and 14k years old.

Do you want syrup with that waffle?

Hollie I have written that mostly because of the evidence that suggest a younger earth over the Ancient earth. I am a believer so the bible does provide a chronology from Adam on down to the present but it does not provide a definite time frame for the earth.

So the answer is "yes". You do want syrup with your waffle.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You have written previously that you believe the planet is somewhere between 6k and 14k years old.

Do you want syrup with that waffle?

Hollie I have written that mostly because of the evidence that suggest a younger earth over the Ancient earth. I am a believer so the bible does provide a chronology from Adam on down to the present but it does not provide a definite time frame for the earth.

So the answer is "yes". You do want syrup with your waffle.

Ok you let me know when you're ready for an adult discussion.

 

[newpolitics]

I think he makes valid points I don't agree with everything he states as you can see I have given my opinions on this with him.

He believes God Exists as do I but he is not willing to say God is a personal God and that is where we part ways.

You see you need physical evidence to believe in God but you don't need physical evidence to believe naturalism is the cause of all we see. These explanations of naturalism are only opinions not physical evidence.

I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.

Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.

What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.

 

[Hollie]

I think he makes valid points I don't agree with everything he states as you can see I have given my opinions on this with him.

He believes God Exists as do I but he is not willing to say God is a personal God and that is where we part ways.

You see you need physical evidence to believe in God but you don't need physical evidence to believe naturalism is the cause of all we see. These explanations of naturalism are only opinions not physical evidence.

I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.

Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.

Provide the testable evidence for Adam and Eve, the magic garden and talking snakes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.

Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.

What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.

I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie I have written that mostly because of the evidence that suggest a younger earth over the Ancient earth. I am a believer so the bible does provide a chronology from Adam on down to the present but it does not provide a definite time frame for the earth.

So the answer is "yes". You do want syrup with your waffle.

Ok you let me know when you're ready for an adult discussion.

Let me spell it out for you. I can identify the various christian fundie websites you have "quote-mined" from and I can also link to the "about" pages on these sites and Identify the announcements of their bias leading to a conclusion of biblical inerrancy.

I got a chuckle when you wrote of an adult discussion.

 

[Hollie]

Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.

What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.

I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.

Still wrong.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.

Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.

Provide the testable evidence for Adam and Eve, the magic garden and talking snakes.

Who was the first Homo sapien pair that produced modern day humans ? Talking serpent can only happen through one means and that can't be proven.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So the answer is "yes". You do want syrup with your waffle.

Ok you let me know when you're ready for an adult discussion.

Let me spell it out for you. I can identify the various christian fundie websites you have "quote-mined" from and I can also link to the "about" pages on these sites and Identify the announcements of their bias leading to a conclusion of biblical inerrancy.

I got a chuckle when you wrote of an adult discussion.

Hollie I share some views with creationist what is your point ? You share views with atheists what is the point ?

So maybe you're not ready for an adult discussion on the evidence. You seem to have a real problem with a believer that can have a rational conversation with you.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.

I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.

Still wrong.

How is it wrong ?

 

[newpolitics]

Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.

What does skepticism have to do with testing the evidence? This is a non-sequitur.

I should have said that differently. without skepticism you can't properly provide a viable explanation for the evidence.

This is still a non-sequitur. A person's disposition with respect to knowledge has no bearing on their ability to test evidence. The only thing that effects ones ability to test evidence, is their methodology for testing evidence. Your assertion amounts to an ad-hominem fallacy, by virtue of the fact that a person's ability to demonstrate truth is not logically connected to their personal doubts about knowledge. For instance, a schizophrenic person conducting an experiment correctly, doesn't make the results any less correct simply because that person is a schizophrenic, to cite an extreme test case. The only thing that would make their results incorrect, is a fault in their methodology.

 

[Hollie]

Ok you let me know when you're ready for an adult discussion.

Let me spell it out for you. I can identify the various christian fundie websites you have "quote-mined" from and I can also link to the "about" pages on these sites and Identify the announcements of their bias leading to a conclusion of biblical inerrancy.

I got a chuckle when you wrote of an adult discussion.

Hollie I share some views with creationist what is your point ? You share views with atheists what is the point ?

So maybe you're not ready for an adult discussion on the evidence. You seem to have a real problem with a believer that can have a rational conversation with you.

Oh, you poor dear.

You share "some" views with Christian creationist?

Those are the only views you present. Typically, those views are presented in the form of fraudulent "quotes", manufactured specifically to denigrate science.

Creation ministries present no peer reviewed facts to support biblical tales of miracles and supernaturalism. Their arguments are attempts only to tear down science.

 

[hobelim]

I don't claim that naturalism is all there possibly is. I however, am not justified in believing in any more, given a lack of evidence. My belief is proportional to the evidence, as best as possible, using bayesian inference. This is the essence of skepticism.

Without skepticism you can't properly test the evidence.

Provide the testable evidence for Adam and Eve, the magic garden and talking snakes.

Would a contemporary illustration be acceptable?


Life is the magic garden, any religious deceiver is the serpent and Adam and Eve is anyone gullible enough to swallow the poison they preach or eat any of the fruit of their vile and contaminated mind who then loses their own sentient mind by allowing falsehood to enter their thought process and as a consequence thorns and thistles are the only fruit capable of being produced by the sweat of their brow, thinking, and they will live out the rest of their days in unenlightened ignorance, the dust of the earth...

How many conversations are do you have to have with a religious deceiver before you recognize a direct descendant of the biblical serpent when you see one?

How many conversations do you have to have with someone who has been deceived by a serpent before you realize that there is no greater darkness than in the mind of someone whose only light in life is a lie?


The effects of allowing falsehood, the forbidden fruit, to enter the mind amounts to killing its ability to function rationally and is quite testable and such a state of death demonstrated daily by the deceived.


See what is there. I'm not making this stuff up. Reality is even stranger than the fairy tale.

 

[daws101]

Hollie can't debate without copying and pasting and she does the same as you post stuff that don't even address the question. What are you trying desperately to suck up so you still might have friends in this forum

You have always been a joke.

I certainly can debate and that was demonstrated by your humiliating concession regarding exposure and refutation of the falsified, edited, parsed and manufactured 'quotes" you cut and pasted from various creation ministries and from Harun Yahya.

You choose to forget that you were "outed" on several occasions for cutting and pasting the same fraudulent "quotes" more than once.

They're part of your posting history. That history is one of dishonesty and fraud.

So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?

You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.

"So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils" -YWC
THE ABOVE QUOTE IS FALSE.
As the content of the quoted article is not factual or scientific it proves nothing as it is based on a religious belief not evidence.
therefore YWC'S CLAIM "'kicking butt" is also false.

 

[daws101]

what !what about the Christian trinity? that's three in one but also individuals...millions of people claim to wrap their heads around that parlor trick.

Its no trick dumbass.

I would explain it but you lack the intelligence and motivation to bother understanding anything told you.

yes dear!
why is it you believers assume that no one but you knows Christianity.
I was born and raised with the same myths you're spouting.
and yes it is a trick ,more accurately an illusion.
there is no objective evidence of god let alone a multi personality one.
understanding that, takes far more intelligence and motivation then believing ancient folk tales.

 

[daws101]

So far the only article I remember from them I used to kick your butt on the living fossils nice try by the way you never responded to the question I raised using that article,why is that Hollie ? since you think you can debate science. Why do fossils dated back over 400 million years ago and the very same organisms alive today show no evolutionary change. The mechanisms for evolution are still working today so why was there no change in an organism that had a higher mutation rate a shorter life span,oh and were able to reproduce many more generations since their life span is less then two weeks. They are also able to produce many more offspring. Why is there no evolutionary change ?

You believe the far more complex homo sapiens evolved in a much shorter time span than flies or mosquitoes.

This is again a function of your appalling lack of any training in science. As we know, the planet is only 6,000 years old. Therefore, any reference to organisms dating back 400 million years Is just more of the global conspiracy Involving the science community. Both you and Harun Yahya are at the forefront of the Investigation exposing the fraud that is science.

That being settled, this would be a good time to address your repeated posting of phony, falsified, edited and parsed "quotes". Your actions revealed a pattern of lies and deceit whereby serial dishonesty was the mechanism to press your religious agenda.

I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.

 

[daws101]

I am well aware that I don't believe the earth is that old. What I am doing is using the evolutionists conclusions against their views. You however do believe this I am asking you how this works ?

The explanations are fraudulent yes they are. Their explanations and theory is not supported by the evidence. Why isn't the science community blowing the whistle on this ? It's simple many don't want to put their jobs at risk.

Hollie the mechanisms are at to work today but the theory is a failure. Harun Yahya is haunting you. Why is it you can't simply look at the evidence it's because your agenda has blinded you.

It's Important that we have heroes such as yourself who are courageous enough to take on those atheistic evilutionist scientists and expose their conspiracies.

There are more than you know like me that are speaking out.

 

[daws101]

I have told you many times before I have no clue how old the earth is and it is futile do to so.

You have written previously that you believe the planet is somewhere between 6k and 14k years old.

Do you want syrup with that waffle?

Hollie I have written that mostly because of the evidence that suggest a younger earth over the Ancient earth. I am a believer so the bible does provide a chronology from Adam on down to the present but it does not provide a definite time frame for the earth.

guess you don't realize your attempt at being obtuse is a failure.