If God doesn't exist...

[james bond]

BreezeWood, the point of singularity is just a theory, isn't it? What you won't consider is that it's God. We do not know how to get there because we would have to overcome spacetime, travel at the speed of light and gravity of a massive black hole. What the first day signifies is how our creator designed our universe so that we may live. There is a sequence involved. Did this just go over your head? Of course, it did.

You're mixing science and Moses (as well as your other points). There is proof of Moses. It was verified by different eyewitnesses. So, now you admit there is an Almighty, which you did before, in order to give Moses his task.

I'm going to stop talking with you here just because... for just cause. Good day, my brother.

 

[james bond]

I'll give you a positive mutation observed in man right now. The reason Micheal Pelps swims fast is because he's double jointed giving him extra trust. This mutation gives him an advantage in aquatic enviremont.The reason people have different skin colors is because coloring regulates the amount of ultraviolet radiation penetrating the skin, a mutation designed to make humans adaptable to different enviremonts. And the reason I didn't answer your thaught experiment is because firstly I haven't had time today and secondly I figured to answer the other post first because I did answer it before. Like I said then and I'll repeat now. I haven't really defended abiogenesis before because it is in the end uproven and defending it even though it is a hell of a lot more substanciated then your arguments is kind off intellectually dishonest. And if I insist on proof of everything you say ( not that you ever do but still), I am commited to te same thing.The reason I eventually did is because you kept bringing it up and I felt it neccesary to at least say that there is a decent hypothesis out. This is something you still don't seem to understand. The level of certainty for me to use something as an argument is way higher then what you are willing to use. Speaking of not answering I did notice that you didn't answer the premise of my argument. Can you think of another way the stopping of mutations would work, besides the 2 ways I described? And I've tried to start posting different, trying to use seperate posts in the hope that you would answer my seperate arguments. To no avail. So what you basicly do is try to answer what you think you can fight and ignore what you can't.

I'm going to give you the "mutation" of skin colors as a positive. Someone described it as diversity. However, is diversity the original trait or a mutation? Could the original settings be set to diversity since natural selection follows from this? Or was the original setting to sameness and we all mutated? Parsimony should give us the answer.

 

[yiostheoy]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your question refer to the philosophical issue of "First Cause".

Looks like you stumbled upon it somehow without a formal study of Philosophy.

There are other "proofs of God" in Philosophy as well:

- First Cause

- Prime Mover

- Artistic Artificer

- Purposeful Designer

- Ontological Proof (i.e., if I can imagine it then it must be true too)

Wiki has a good write up about this if you want a shortcut:

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However if you want the longer version of proof you will need to read Philosophy.

Most college Philosophy curricula begin with a survey course.

The best written one is the book by Bertrand Russell, "History Of Western Philosophy".

After you read that then you may want to update yourself with Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy".

The long and the short of it all is that there are 7 billion people on this planet of ours and most fall into one of the following individual categories:

- Deists

- Theists

- Atheists

- Agnostics

- Not interested's.

You cannot prove to one or other of them they are right or wrong. Religion is simply a choice. In most cases that choice has been a matter of brainwashing by parents, teachers, and friends however.

Science has nothing to do with religion, however several Atheists, Agnostics, and Not Interested's have made Science their religion.

Philosophy is also independent of Religion and of Science.

View attachment 79656

What makes you believe I haven't studied philosophy?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I suppose I got that impression (that you had not studied Philosophy) because you mixed science and religion with your First Cause argument from Philosophy all 3 in one.

And Bertrand Russell tells us that we must never mix Science and Religion and Philosophy -- the 3 of them must always be kept separate.

Therefore I figured that you have never read Russell. Therefore I concluded that you had never studied Philosophy.

Sorry if I am mistaken.

But if you ARE indeed a Philosopher than I don't think it is fair picking on non-philosophers with Rhetorical fallacies.

The fallacy of Religion is affirmation of the consequent. Theists cannot prove Religion or God. Religion is a choice that depends on faith.

The fallacy of Science is false authority. Scientists have no proof of God and they never will. They cannot disprove God either.

And if you are going to utilize the First Cause argument of Philosophy for proof of God, then you should at least give credit for it to San Tomas Aquinas who first formulated it.

Just my own thoughts, ... .

 

[Damaged Eagle]

...and science holds the answer to all questions....

Then what kick started the universe?

After all we wouldn't want to violate one of Newton's three laws now would we?

If the scientific answer at this time is we don't know...

Then doesn't that mean a miracle occurred?

*****CHUCKLE*****

Your question refer to the philosophical issue of "First Cause".

Looks like you stumbled upon it somehow without a formal study of Philosophy.

There are other "proofs of God" in Philosophy as well:

- First Cause

- Prime Mover

- Artistic Artificer

- Purposeful Designer

- Ontological Proof (i.e., if I can imagine it then it must be true too)

Wiki has a good write up about this if you want a shortcut:

Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However if you want the longer version of proof you will need to read Philosophy.

Most college Philosophy curricula begin with a survey course.

The best written one is the book by Bertrand Russell, "History Of Western Philosophy".

After you read that then you may want to update yourself with Roger Scruton's "Modern Philosophy".

The long and the short of it all is that there are 7 billion people on this planet of ours and most fall into one of the following individual categories:

- Deists

- Theists

- Atheists

- Agnostics

- Not interested's.

You cannot prove to one or other of them they are right or wrong. Religion is simply a choice. In most cases that choice has been a matter of brainwashing by parents, teachers, and friends however.

Science has nothing to do with religion, however several Atheists, Agnostics, and Not Interested's have made Science their religion.

Philosophy is also independent of Religion and of Science.

View attachment 79656

What makes you believe I haven't studied philosophy?

*****CHUCKLE*****

I suppose I got that impression (that you had not studied Philosophy) because you mixed science and religion with your First Cause argument from Philosophy all 3 in one.

And Bertrand Russell tells us that we must never mix Science and Religion and Philosophy -- the 3 of them must always be kept separate.

Therefore I figured that you have never read Russell. Therefore I concluded that you had never studied Philosophy.

Sorry if I am mistaken.

But if you ARE indeed a Philosopher than I don't think it is fair picking on non-philosophers with Rhetorical fallacies.

The fallacy of Religion is affirmation of the consequent. Theists cannot prove Religion or God. Religion is a choice that depends on faith.

The fallacy of Science is false authority. Scientists have no proof of God and they never will. They cannot disprove God either.

And if you are going to utilize the First Cause argument of Philosophy for proof of God, then you should at least give credit for it to San Tomas Aquinas who first formulated it.

Just my own thoughts, Brother.

Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...

Have you read the entire thread?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[yiostheoy]

Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...

Have you read the entire thread?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The entire thread ??

Why would I do that after finding several fallacies in the original post?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...

Have you read the entire thread?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The entire thread ??

Why would I do that after finding several fallacies in the original post?

If you don't want to read it that is your choice.

The only fallacy that I see is your not comprehending my position on the subject by introducing a philosophical concept that I consider quaint but incorrect.

I have all the proof that God exists that I require and that science is a means of comprehending God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[yiostheoy]

Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...

Have you read the entire thread?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The entire thread ??

Why would I do that after finding several fallacies in the original post?

If you don't want to read it that is your choice.

The only fallacy that I see is your not comprehending my position on the subject by introducing a philosophical concept that I consider quaint but incorrect.

I have all the proof that God exists that I require and that science is a means of comprehending God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

It is obvious that your are plagiarizing San Tomas Aquinas' argument for his "First Cause" proof of God and you are claiming it for yourself and trying to look smart.

That makes you a literary thief.

Think of your own proof of God and then publish that.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Bertrand Russell can believe whatever he wants. It doesn't make what he says correct...

Have you read the entire thread?

*****CHUCKLE*****

The entire thread ??

Why would I do that after finding several fallacies in the original post?

If you don't want to read it that is your choice.

The only fallacy that I see is your not comprehending my position on the subject by introducing a philosophical concept that I consider quaint but incorrect.

I have all the proof that God exists that I require and that science is a means of comprehending God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

It is obvious that your are plagiarizing San Tomas Aquinas' argument for his "First Cause" proof of God and you are claiming it for yourself and trying to look smart.

That makes you a literary thief.

Think of your own proof of God and then publish that.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was Christian and I am not.

My beliefs about God the universe and everything are my own.

My argument would change if instead the scientific community decided to go with a Steady State Theory instead of the Big Bang Theory. So if you think I'm attempting to prove God's existence through some 'First Cause' you are mistaken. I already had the all the proof I needed that God is real without such proofs.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[yiostheoy]

Commandment #8:

Thou shalt not steal.

Jewish commandment actually, but on point.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Commandment #8:

Thou shalt not steal.

Jewish commandment actually, but on point.

When did I state that I was Jewish? Nope! Wrong guess..... Perhaps you should really go back and find out what my beliefs are or simply ask. But since you don't feel inclined to investigate such matters...

You continue to refuse to read to entire thread and assume things. Isn't that a fallacy in itself? I do believe so! Your appeal to probability is lacking from the onset and only leads you to an argument of fallacy.

Everything is stolen. Even this simple form of communication is stolen from someone else. So if you have a problem with someone utilizing someone else's ideas to make a point then I'll simply point out that you're already stealing someone else's ideas, like Bertrand Russell, in attempting to make a point. Instead of cherry picking your argument perhaps you should find out the data that lead to the conclusion presented. Besides if one should not steal then those scientists should have know better than to attempt to create a Creation Theology of their own. So if atheists who think science is the end to a means want to argue I'm more than willing to play.

Damn!!!!! Is this thread up to a 145 pages long. Damn!...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[HUGGY]

All those pages and STILL nobody has proven the existence of a sky fairy? How does pasting music vids help prove something believed entirely on faith? Fear of death driven rubbish.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

View attachment 79697


All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? You can't disprove that there isn't a tiny teapot floating between Earth and Mars in the same way you can't prove there WASN'T a miracle that created the universe. You are using a flawed system of logic that attempts to distract the burden of proof from the person making the claim.

What is this thread's obsession with posting music videos like it gets them anywhere? I'm really starting to notice Christianity is more prevalent in American music culture than I thought.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 79697


All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? You can't disprove that there isn't a tiny teapot floating between Earth and Mars in the same way you can't prove there WASN'T a miracle that created the universe. You are using a flawed system of logic that attempts to distract the burden of proof from the person making the claim.

What is this thread's obsession with posting music videos like it gets them anywhere? I'm really starting to notice Christianity is more prevalent in American music culture than I thought.

Still haven't heard anyone answer what kick started the universe so obviously this Big Bang thingee must be one of them there Russell's Teapot thingees because no one can prove it happened. So using science to prove how everything happened must be a flawed system of logic also because everyone is being asked to believe that some miraculous event occurred about fifteen billion years ago that defies scientific analysis. Right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

View attachment 79697


All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? You can't disprove that there isn't a tiny teapot floating between Earth and Mars in the same way you can't prove there WASN'T a miracle that created the universe. You are using a flawed system of logic that attempts to distract the burden of proof from the person making the claim.

What is this thread's obsession with posting music videos like it gets them anywhere? I'm really starting to notice Christianity is more prevalent in American music culture than I thought.

Still haven't heard anyone answer what kick started the universe so obviously this Big Bang thingee must be one of them there Russell's Teapot thingees because no one can prove it happened. So using science to prove how everything happened must be a flawed system of logic also because everyone is being asked to believe that some miraculous event occurred about fifteen billion years ago that defies scientific analysis. Right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We do have proof of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang - NASA Science
What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang? - Universe Today

The Big Bang is the most well-supported and logical model of how the universe came to be.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 79697


All these pages and no one has proven that a miracle didn't happen when everything began either? How does denying the proof of Gods existence that lies all around oneself make someone so incredibly cynical? Fear of life propelled effluvium.

*****CHUCKLE*****

Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? You can't disprove that there isn't a tiny teapot floating between Earth and Mars in the same way you can't prove there WASN'T a miracle that created the universe. You are using a flawed system of logic that attempts to distract the burden of proof from the person making the claim.

What is this thread's obsession with posting music videos like it gets them anywhere? I'm really starting to notice Christianity is more prevalent in American music culture than I thought.

Still haven't heard anyone answer what kick started the universe so obviously this Big Bang thingee must be one of them there Russell's Teapot thingees because no one can prove it happened. So using science to prove how everything happened must be a flawed system of logic also because everyone is being asked to believe that some miraculous event occurred about fifteen billion years ago that defies scientific analysis. Right?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We do have proof of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang - NASA Science
What Is The Evidence For The Big Bang? - Universe Today

The Big Bang is the most well-supported and logical model of how the universe came to be.

All I'm seeing is evidence that violates Newton's Laws Of Motion.

What kick started the universe?

Let me guess... It just happened and it's not to be questioned because there's 100% scientific consensus on the matter.

That sounds very much like a miracle happened to me... Which means scientific consensus leads us right back to your teapot not?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

All I'm seeing is evidence that violates Newton's Laws Of Motion.

What kick started the universe?

Let me guess... It just happened and it's not to be questioned because there's 100% scientific consensus on the matter.

That sounds very much like a miracle happened to me... Which means scientific consensus leads us right back to your teapot not?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We don't know the state of the universe before the Big Bang, Scientists are willing to admit that. But you can't insert God or anything else in there because that is both an argument from ignorance and a god of the gaps argument. What do Newton's Laws of motions have to do with anything here?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

All I'm seeing is evidence that violates Newton's Laws Of Motion.

What kick started the universe?

Let me guess... It just happened and it's not to be questioned because there's 100% scientific consensus on the matter.

That sounds very much like a miracle happened to me... Which means scientific consensus leads us right back to your teapot not?

*****CHUCKLE*****

We don't know the state of the universe before the Big Bang, Scientists are willing to admit that. But you can't insert God or anything else in there because that is both an argument from ignorance and a god of the gaps argument.

It sounds to me like scientific consensus is an argument of ignorance and a god of the gaps argument too.

What do Newton's Laws of motions have to do with anything here?

What kick started the universe?

Looks like all you have is a teapot

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Epitah]

It sounds to me like scientific consensus is an argument of ignorance and a god of the gaps argument too.

What kick started the universe?

Looks like all you have is a teapot

How is accepting we don't have an explanation either of those? It is neither an argument for something being true nor is it an assertion of God. Now you're just being stupid, and you obviously have no clue what the purpose of the teapot is. It is a demonstration of who the burden of proof lies on.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

It sounds to me like scientific consensus is an argument of ignorance and a god of the gaps argument too.

What kick started the universe?

Looks like all you have is a teapot

How is accepting we don't have an explanation either of those? It is neither an argument for something being true nor is it an assertion of God. Now you're just being stupid, and you obviously have no clue what the purpose of the teapot is. It is a demonstration of who the burden of proof lies on.

The burden of proof lies on the scientists to prove that something kick started the universe thereby not violating Newton's Laws Of Motion. Until then all they have is evidence that indicates the Big Bang happened and a scientific consensus that may or may not be true.

On the other hand...

Miracle: A highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.

I'm content with the fact a miracle happened.

*****CHUCKLE*****