Is There One Sound/valid Syllogistic Argument For The Existence Of God?

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, you come back around to my point. The 'self' exists "only in your mind". Does that mean it isn't real? My own view is that gods, if they do exist as distinct entities, are something like distributed minds, populating the brains of believers.

That is pretty close to what I think.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I was just making the point that the question of creation and the nature of gods isn't necessarily the same discussion.

I agree with that. I was just alluding to something you said earlier that made a lot of sense. Maybe I didn't say it right. The idea I got from what you said earlier is that in a very real sense the recognition that "I exist" and the idea of God are the same idea. Do you recall exactly what you meant by that?

Yeah. It was more the idea that the self, the soul or mind or whatever you choose to call it, is just as much an immaterial entity as gods are.

Right. But also once you say "I exist" you realize that I didn't create myself so who or what did? We also see immediately that either the apparent material world did or something immaterial did. That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

If that's all you guys mean by god then ok fine. We see no evidence of a creator but it is certainly possible. Does it matter if we believe?

It's when you start telling us that god came and talked to your ancestors and said if anyone from here on out doesn't believe they go to hell that we start having problems.

No evidence for God? Are you crazy? If there's no evidence for God then why to you keep talking about God. You have no idea how silly you are as you tell others to shut up with lies.

This is the best comeback you have? I'd think if you had any evidence you would have included it.

I'm assuming you don't mean the bible or koran. So besides these books full of lies, what other evidence? I mean besides you can't imagine or believe otherwise because that aint evidence.

 

[Justin Davis]

No one is disputing Q on that. That is not what the problem is. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I understand that and R understands what you wrote easily.

The problem is that Q is making specific claims about forms of logic and the laws of logic that are not true and can't be true. He also lies about what R has said about logic. Q does not understand the principle of identity in general, the law of excluded middle or constructive logic. The nature of the things he's saying especially after being shown that he couldn't possibly be right shows that he said stupid things that now he will not admit are wrong. And the way he evades what is actually being said shows that he knows he's lying, consciously and deliberately. He doesn't really believe what he's saying. He just won't admit that he's wrong.

The only thing he has said that's right about logic is things like what I put in bold and that constructive logic doesn't use laws of excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms. He thinks that means they don't still apply in constructive logic but they still do, just not as axioms. Also the principle of identity, the law of identity and the law of contradiction always apply in all forms of logic and it's the things that are necessarily true universally because of the principle of identity that R is talking about and nothing else. If Q understands constructive logic why doesn't he understand these things? He's liar, that's why. He knows he doesn't really know much about constructive logic. He wouldn't be saying these other things about logic if he did. He just thought from something googled that R was wrong. Q is googler, a quote monger on these things. Q just keeps implying things with links because he can't actually show the stupid things that he's imply negate R's posts. They do not. If you take a close look at his trash, you'll that he never really says anything that matters. He's an emperor without clothes, a con man.

Keep telling yourself that, kid. It probably makes you feel better about your attacks on me.

By the way, have you noticed that I have not once resorted to personal attacks, unlike both you and Rawlings?

Lying about what people have said, pretending they have said things they did not as you pretend to know things you do not is not attacking them? Another lie from you.

 

[sealybobo]

Wondering if Justin is going to go with evidence of a generic god or if he's going to use all the "evidence" that theists use such as a book someone wrote about the myth 80 years after it supposedly happened. Big difference.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I said there is no evidence of god that doesn't have some fatal flaw to it. I'm talking about the evidence not your god. Relax.

Evidence does not have flaws, arguments do. You keep conflating evidence with arguments, and dismissing it because you are unwilling to actually consider the possibility that, if you looked at the entire body of evidence, you would understand that proof is actually a word you misunderstood.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's lots of evidence to define your gods as incompetent "designers".

Only if you first assume that the gods actually designed something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you didnt overestimate shit

you come into every room thinking youre the smawwtest guy of evaaaa

but really, everyone knows you're just a blowhard douchebag

congrats

I didn't?

Does that mean that you actually understand that proof, as you define it, only exist if we examine all the evidence? Does that mean you have examined every single piece of evidence in existence, personally interviewed every single believer, and concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no proof? Or are we back to you refusing to admit that anyone can possibly know something you do not?

Personally, I vote for the latter because I know for a fact that you never once asked me why I believe.

 

[sealybobo]

... That's what we call god or God, something that has always existed and caused everything else.

That's one definition of God. It seems there are others.

What are they? I'll tell you what they are. They are variations that all come down to these two options. There are no other options. That's it.

? what two options?

Something has always existed or we came from nothing. Which is it? If something that has always existed, is it material or transcendent? Why are you struggling with this?

Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life. I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from. Do you?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

 

[sealybobo]

Give us 3 "proofs" please.

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Science doesn't say anything. Science doesn't even do anything. We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical. sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham

Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP! LOL.

More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking." All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion. Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.

These scientists are not saying what you said. It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false. That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.

You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything. We say what science is and what it is not. We do science, science doesn't do itself. And we say what science demonstrates.

You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up. Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words. I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds. Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world. You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian. Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause. You are the one saying something that is false, not me.

But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true. Liars. Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute. No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny. I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds.

Bullshit! A person who's science is studying the mind has not only figured out what part of our brain believes in god, we know why too. Seems to science like wishful thinking.

That's just their current theory. They are open to being wrong. It is YOU who is not.

 

[G.T.]

you didnt overestimate shit

you come into every room thinking youre the smawwtest guy of evaaaa

but really, everyone knows you're just a blowhard douchebag

congrats

I didn't?

Does that mean that you actually understand that proof, as you define it, only exist if we examine all the evidence? Does that mean you have examined every single piece of evidence in existence, personally interviewed every single believer, and concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no proof? Or are we back to you refusing to admit that anyone can possibly know something you do not?

Personally, I vote for the latter because I know for a fact that you never once asked me why I believe.

actually, i asked you your theory on origins and you responded by saying you dont tell the boards that cuz youre afraid that nobody is smart enough to understand it

do i need to quote you?

douchebag

 

[sealybobo]

Cognitive Science.

5 Ways Science is Studying the Brain Discovery Channel

Atheist Empire God and the Brain

There is so much you don't know.

Through the Wormhole Did We Invent God Videos Science Channel

Science and religion God didn t make man man made gods - Los Angeles Times

 

[sealybobo]

you didnt overestimate shit

you come into every room thinking youre the smawwtest guy of evaaaa

but really, everyone knows you're just a blowhard douchebag

congrats

I didn't?

Does that mean that you actually understand that proof, as you define it, only exist if we examine all the evidence? Does that mean you have examined every single piece of evidence in existence, personally interviewed every single believer, and concluded, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that there is no proof? Or are we back to you refusing to admit that anyone can possibly know something you do not?

Personally, I vote for the latter because I know for a fact that you never once asked me why I believe.

Yea douchbag. LOL

 

[Justin Davis]

No one is disputing Q on that. That is not what the problem is. It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I understand that and R understands what you wrote easily.

The problem is that Q is making specific claims about forms of logic and the laws of logic that are not true and can't be true. He also lies about what R has said about logic. Q does not understand the principle of identity in general, the law of excluded middle or constructive logic. The nature of the things he's saying especially after being shown that he couldn't possibly be right shows that he said stupid things that now he will not admit are wrong. And the way he evades what is actually being said shows that he knows he's lying, consciously and deliberately. He doesn't really believe what he's saying. He just won't admit that he's wrong.

The only thing he has said that's right about logic is things like what I put in bold and that constructive logic doesn't use laws of excluded middle and double negation elimination as axioms. He thinks that means they don't still apply in constructive logic but they still do, just not as axioms. Also the principle of identity, the law of identity and the law of contradiction always apply in all forms of logic and it's the things that are necessarily true universally because of the principle of identity that R is talking about and nothing else. If Q understands constructive logic why doesn't he understand these things? He's liar, that's why. He knows he doesn't really know much about constructive logic. He wouldn't be saying these other things about logic if he did. He just thought from something googled that R was wrong. Q is googler, a quote monger on these things. Q just keeps implying things with links because he can't actually show the stupid things that he's imply negate R's posts. They do not. If you take a close look at his trash, you'll that he never really says anything that matters. He's an emperor without clothes, a con man.

Keep telling yourself that, kid. It probably makes you feel better about your attacks on me.

By the way, have you noticed that I have not once resorted to personal attacks, unlike both you and Rawlings?

Let me say this another way. You attacked him with lies. You attacked the credibility of what Rawlings said, his reputation when all he was talking about are objective, academic things that anyone can check out. Foxfrye obviously doesn't bother to do that kind of thing and blames those who do check things ouot for your disgraceful behavior. She's an idiot. You presented personal opinions as absolute facts to make yourself look smarter and to sneer. I saw your game. You fooled me at first and fooled gullible nanny Foxfyre, but you don’t fool me anymore. And it was all lies. Stupid lies. Illogical lies. Factual lies. I studied up on constructive logic to check you out as you were obviously lying about classical logic as Rawlings clearly showed. He didn't attack you the way you mean, liar. He called you out for what you are and proved it every time, liar.

Here’s another stupid thing you said while trying to make Rawlings look like he was wrong on something when he wasn‘t. You said that science, philosophy and logic can’t define dark matter and dark energy. No cokadoodledoodo, retard. These things don’t define anything and never have. But that’s not the way you meant that. You were trying to say that logic doesn’t hold up universally, which is a hogwash lie. You have no proof, that's your opinion. How stupid is that? That’s what happens when liars lie to change what’s true. We define things using these mediums of knowledge and logic is just a tool we use to define things in these mediums. How stupid is it to talk about things as if they were persons. See how liars confuse themselves? No one has to attack you to show what a liar you are, just point out the stupid things you say when you’re lying about what others are saying so you can look superior.

 

[sealybobo]

I said there is no evidence of god that doesn't have some fatal flaw to it. I'm talking about the evidence not your god. Relax.

Evidence does not have flaws, arguments do. You keep conflating evidence with arguments, and dismissing it because you are unwilling to actually consider the possibility that, if you looked at the entire body of evidence, you would understand that proof is actually a word you misunderstood.

If you show me your bible as evidence, it has flaws.

There is no evidence to support any of the claims made in the Bible concerning the existence of a god. Any ‘evidence’ proposed by theists to support the Bible’s various historical and supernatural claims is non-existent at best, manufactured at worst.

The Bible is not self-authenticating; it is simply one of many religious texts. Like those other texts, it itself constitutes no evidence for the existence of a god. Its florid prose and fanciful content do not legitimise it nor distinguish it from other ancient works of literature.

The Bible is historically inaccurate [2], factually incorrect, inconsistent [2] and contradictory. It was artificially constructed by a group of men in antiquity and is poorly translated, heavily altered and selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been redacted over time.

 

[sealybobo]

There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.

All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.

The Gospels themselves contradict one-another [2] on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events they describe are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.

The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented [2] by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.

Even if Jesus’ existence could be established, this would in no way validate Christian theology or any element of the story portrayed in the Bible, such as the performance of miracles or the resurrection. Simply because it is conceivable a heretical Jewish preacher named Yeshua lived circa 30 AD, had followers and was executed, does not imply the son of a god walked the Earth at that time.

The motivation for belief in a divine, salvational Jesus breaks down when you accept evolution:

“Now, if the book of Genesis is an allegory, then sin is an allegory, the Fall is an allegory and the need for a Savior is an allegory – but if we are all descendants of an allegory, where does that leave us? It destroys the foundation of all Christian doctrine—it destroys the foundation of the gospel.” - Ken Ham

Why there is no god

 

[Justin Davis]

What are they? I'll tell you what they are. They are variations that all come down to these two options. There are no other options. That's it.

Not true, many cultures have a gods that are not eternal. You can get up on a high horse and claim that your god is the only possible god, but that puts you in a pretty tight bind.

So? Something from nothing at some point? Or was their god always until he made the universe then he gets swallowed up by the universe? Does the universe end up dying in the end? Whatever. What's that got to do with the two options, material or immaterial, or that the highest conceivable idea would be eternal? Once again, you're not making any sense. Looks like I win.

 

[Justin Davis]

The mere fact that we're talking about them, for starters. I'm not meaning to play games here, but I am taking a broader stance on the concept of existence than usual.

I come at this from readings I've done on the nature of consciousness and self. Defining the self (mind, soul, etc) turns out to be far slipperier than we assume. The only real evidence we have for the existence of self-awareness is our claim that we experience it. Is that radically different t than the claims of people who say they've experienced deities?

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Science doesn't say anything. Science doesn't even do anything. We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical. sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham

Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP! LOL.

More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking." All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion. Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.

These scientists are not saying what you said. It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false. That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.

You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything. We say what science is and what it is not. We do science, science doesn't do itself. And we say what science demonstrates.

You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up. Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words. I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds. Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world. You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian. Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause. You are the one saying something that is false, not me.

But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true. Liars. Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute. No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny. I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds.

Bullshit! A person who's science is studying the mind has not only figured out what part of our brain believes in god, we know why too. Seems to science like wishful thinking.

That's just their current theory. They are open to being wrong. It is YOU who is not.

So where is your Lying QW link for this so I can show how you got the science wrong?

 

[sealybobo]

Science says that it is wishful thinking. Humans have always looked up and wondered. That's not proof there is a god. That's proof we have curious, susperstitious, emotional minds.

I certainly don't think this is the "gocha" moment for theists. Just because you are self aware does not prove a god exists. Do you know they are finding out dogs and dolphins are self aware? So what? And when dogs get smart enough in another 1000 years, maybe they'll believe in gods too. As long as we tell them its true they'll believe anything we say, right?

And yes, it is radical to go from wondering about your self awareness to believing in deities or a creator. There might be one, but who knows?

Does god exist in your mind and Boss' mind? He sure does. Does that mean god is real? Nope.

Science doesn't say anything. Science doesn't even do anything. We say and do things with science, and science doesn't deal with anything at all that is not empirical. sealybobos say foolish things like that, which are not true, scientific or rational.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative and disprove or reinterpret the scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.[4][5] Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts.[6][7] According to a popular introductory philosophy of science text, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham

Creation science - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Wiki wiki wiki wiki SHUT UP! LOL.

More accurately, saying that science's object of investigation is limited to empirical materiality is not the same thing as saying that "creationism is wishful thinking." All these scientists are saying is that creationism is not science, but religion. Whether or not biblical creationism is ultimately true is an entirely different issue, one that is theological/philosophical not scientific.

These scientists are not saying what you said. It is not scientific to say that "creationism is wishful thinking," in other words, false. That would not be scientific statement, but theological or philosophical.

You are confusing creationism with creation science, and science doesn't say anything. We say what science is and what it is not. We do science, science doesn't do itself. And we say what science demonstrates.

You post something that proves what I'm telling you as if it told us something I'm not saying, then you tell me to shut up. Look here you little punk, I don't know where you come from, but where I come those are fighting words. I stand 6' 4" and weight in at over two-hundred pounds. Be glad you're behind a computer out there somewhere as I'd slap you like the little sissy you are and send you into orbit if you got up into my face like that in the real world. You are another hateful, lying, ill-mannered barbarian. Civilized humans don't tell others to shut up without a justifiable cause. You are the one saying something that is false, not me.

But one of the most amazing things on this thread is that Rawlings, whose posts are nothing more than the basic, objectively universal facts that we all agree on and have agreed on is told that he's being a know it all. What a load of crap that is. That would be assholes like QW doing that. Only the hypocrites on this thread are saying that about Rawlings because s his posts remind keep reminding what they have already conceded to be true when in other posts they try to pretend what they said before is now not true. Liars. Rawlings posts are superior to anything else on this thread, the plain ordinary facts of consciousness, not made up bullshit or subjective opinions babbled like that fraud QW. QW has done nothing but lie about Rawlings ideas while pretending to be the open-minded one. What a crock and that whiny nanny Foxfyre complains because Rawlings and I are sick of QW's lies and his phoniness as she pretends like she's not pushing her subjective opinions as if they were absolutes too. " They don't understand. They're misrepresenting me. Boo hoo." What a phony, saying subjective made up trash based on nothing objective as if it were absolute. No, I get you just fine Foxfyre, you're a phony pretending to be open-minded when in fact your a dogmatic ninny. I don't care that Rawlings says you're good people. Civilized people don’t do what QW has done to the reputation of others on this thread. Those who lie about what I say are going to get my boot up their ass and Rawlings had every right in the world to put his boot up that lying ass of QW., nanny girl. It’s not our fault you're too stupid or hypocritical, turning a blind eye on QW's disgraceful behavior, to see what kind of person QW is and what he has pulled on this thread about the truth of God and the truth about God that God has put into our minds.

Bullshit! A person who's science is studying the mind has not only figured out what part of our brain believes in god, we know why too. Seems to science like wishful thinking.

That's just their current theory. They are open to being wrong. It is YOU who is not.

So where is your Lying QW link for this so I can show how you got the science wrong?

post 1731

 

[Justin Davis]

Evidence shows that life may have come from a meteor. They are packed full of amino acids/ice/life. I don't know where those amino acids and ice came from. Do you?

The First Cause Argument, or Cosmological Argument [2], is internally contradictory and raises the following questions: Who or what created god?, Why should a hypothetical ‘cause’ have any of the common attributes of a god?, Why is the ‘cause’ a specific god?, Why can’t the universe be causeless too? and, most importantly, Why rule out all other possible explanations?

It is fundamentally a ‘god of the gaps’ approach. Our current lack of understanding concerning the Universe’s origins does not automatically mean ‘god’ holds any explanatory value. Metaphysical and theistic speculation are not immediately justified or correct simply because we lack a comprehensive scientific model. Uncertainty is the most valid position and one can honestly say “We just don’t know yet”.

The argument ignores the fact that our everyday understanding of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori inductive reasoning – which means it might not apply to everything. Time, for instance, appears to have begun with the Big Bang, so there might not have been any ’cause’ for the Universe to be an ‘effect’ of since there was probably no time for a ’cause’ to exist in. Applying concepts like time and causality to the Big Bang might be comparable to asking “What is north of the North Pole?” – ultimately nonsensical and incoherent. Furthermore, even if causality could be established it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as the properties and nature of the ’cause’ could forever remain a mystery or be naturalistic.

In fact, something can come from nothing and we are able to observe it in the form of virtual particles and quantum vacuum fluctuations. They explain why the early universe lacked uniformity and provided the seeds for the emergence of structure [2][3]. These quantum phenomena are also causeless in the sense that they are objectively and irreducibly random, a fact confirmed by tests of non-local realism and Bell’s Theorem.

Note 1: Theists often state “God is outside of time”. This claim does not actually make their speculation correct. Instead, it brings with it a whole host of problems and may be immediately dismissed as being without basis and a type fallacy known as special pleading.

Another Lying QW post, something meaning something it doesn't. So who created the meteors? You?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Yep. Like Justin said, what we have here is a Lying QW. LOL!

You might have a point, if I ever said anything you just quoted.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9960056/

Did you forget my response to your last Lying QW post? Remember how I mimicked your questions that implied things that weren't in your link at all?


Are you ignorant?

Yes, of course your ignorant.

Yeah. Let's find out.

Yeah. I noticed that you provided a citation.

What is this evidence for?

What's is your position?

What's my alleged dogma?

You don't really tells anything here, do you?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
___________________________________________

Let's review your dogma, which was the notion that the proper term--remember?--for referring to this law is the law of identity.

But that's not always true. Why is that I wonder. Well, actually I don't wonder.

What do we see here? Why, what we see is my term that you said was improper: the principle of identity.

My term: the principle of identity.

Your term: the law of identity.

Which one of these is in your citation?

Uh-oh, that would be my term, my term, my term . . . not yours. Oops. Why is that?

And why are the other two expressed as the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle in this case, as juxtaposed against the principle of identity?

Why the shift?

In fact, more often than not they will all be referred to as laws on equal terms, as considered separately from the comprehensive principle.

And why are they listed contradiction, excluded middle (laws) and then identity (principle)?

They're normally listed identity, contradiction and excluded middle.

So what is this particular iteration of the three alluding to?

Essentially the comprehensive principle goes to ontological being. What is it? What is it's identity as opposed to the identity of all other things. Identity is the overarching theme!

1. Everything is. . . . (Everything that exists has a specific nature.)
2. Nothing can be. . . .
3. Everything must . . . be.

You see, we don't do two or three, until we one is established. Then we have the complete nature of the thing (with some things being two or more things simultaneously) and the comprehensive principle. Hello!

But then dogmatic thinking is all you've got: copy and paste, regurgitation. You really have no clue. In fact, the discrete law of identity proper and the comprehensive principle of identity are much more complex than you seem to think, dogma man.