Reason and Experience tell us that there is Evidence for a Creator

[PK1]

Can I use something you have created as evidence?

Boy, is that line getting old!
LOL

 

[ding]

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Certainly. Here is a quote from your previous post.

In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator.

Proceed with your determination.

That's not the subject of this thread and if it were I would post what I believe and you could take it or leave it which is probably not going to satisfy what you are looking for.

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

Who is 'us'- is that your royal 'we'- are you the queen?

lol, I don't need you to be one of "us." You are free to believe anything you want.

 

[ding]

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Except the entire purpose of your OP was that you can prove to others the existence of a Creator. Now, you acknowledge that you can't.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Maybe you should re-read the title of the thread.

 

[ding]

Reason and experience tell us that there is evidence for a Creator.

You have a very LOW BAR for "evidence", and likely coupled with extreme ignorance about current scientific knowledge & methods used for interpretation & theorization.
How is your "reason & experience" significantly different from god-inclined philosophers from 2,000 years ago, when the sun revolved around ourselves?

Tangible items can be used as evidence. If I have low bar, then the entire justice system has a low bar. Maybe you are confusing the findings of what evidence tells us or proves with the evidence itself. They are two different things.

 

[ding]

Can I use something you have created as evidence?

Boy, is that line getting old!
LOL

Only because it challenges your beliefs. Truth usually hurts before it helps.

 

[BULLDOG]

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Certainly. Here is a quote from your previous post.

In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator.

Proceed with your determination.

That's not the subject of this thread and if it were I would post what I believe and you could take it or leave it which is probably not going to satisfy what you are looking for.

Got it. You thought this thread would be a good idea, but quickly found out it's not as easy as preaching to the choir, as I expect you usually do. That happens a lot with bible thumpers.

 

[ding]

Six against one. That doesn't seem like very fair odds. I think you guys need to get more guys, lol.

 

[ding]

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Certainly. Here is a quote from your previous post.

In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator.

Proceed with your determination.

That's not the subject of this thread and if it were I would post what I believe and you could take it or leave it which is probably not going to satisfy what you are looking for.

Got it. You thought this thread would be a good idea, but quickly found out it's not as easy as preaching to the choir, as I expect you usually do. That happens a lot with bible thumpers.

If you say so. I see it slightly different.

 

[Czernobog]

A box and what is in it. OK. The box is nothing more than air, and there is a flower growing in it. Prove a sentient creator created that flower, and it is not just the result of nature.

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Except the entire purpose of your OP was that you can prove to others the existence of a Creator. Now, you acknowledge that you can't.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Maybe you should re-read the title of the thread.

The title of the thread be damned. You started this thread as a direct challenge to me, and in post #20, and #21 specifically called me out so that you could demonstrate your brilliance, and prove to me the existence of a creator, using the "evidence" of the universe. Now that this isn't working out so well for you, you insist "I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself..."
Your failure is noted.

 

[Czernobog]

Six against one. That doesn't seem like very fair odds. I think you guys need to get more guys, lol.

Why? You're failing just fine with just the six of us. Seems to me it is you who should go find some backup.

 

[ding]

Sure. My point was though that we can know that tangible items can be used as evidence and that we can get information from them to learn something about the creator that made them. This should be a fairly self evident concept since we have personal experiences with making things. I think the problem people are having is skipping steps. They want to go directly to arguing about God. That would be as foolish as you trying to create your cart in one step. It just isn't possible. They can always argue about what the evidence means, they can't argue that it isn't evidence or that knowledge cannot be gained from that evidence.

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

No, it is you who are trying to confirm your bias. You have a box of stuff. You assume that box of stuff is evidence of a creator. Why? Why do you make that assumption? I repeat my question: You can infer things about the nature of Bulldog, based on the cart that he built, correct?

There is really nothing more I need to add or want to add.

But I'm the one being dishonest, and afraid to have their bias exposed. LOL.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes. That is correct.

 

[ding]

Six against one. That doesn't seem like very fair odds. I think you guys need to get more guys, lol.

Why? You're failing just fine with just the six of us. Seems to me it is you who should go find some backup.

I don't believe I need it. I'm pretty happy.

 

[Czernobog]

I agree with you completely. However you can only use those tangible items as evidence to get information about their creator when you know with certainty that those tangible items were, in fact, created.

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

No, it is you who are trying to confirm your bias. You have a box of stuff. You assume that box of stuff is evidence of a creator. Why? Why do you make that assumption? I repeat my question: You can infer things about the nature of Bulldog, based on the cart that he built, correct?

There is really nothing more I need to add or want to add.

But I'm the one being dishonest, and afraid to have their bias exposed. LOL.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes. That is correct.

Says the guy who keeps running from his own failure.

 

[ding]

A common reference to the universe.

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Except the entire purpose of your OP was that you can prove to others the existence of a Creator. Now, you acknowledge that you can't.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Maybe you should re-read the title of the thread.

The title of the thread be damned. You started this thread as a direct challenge to me, and in post #20, and #21 specifically called me out so that you could demonstrate your brilliance, and prove to me the existence of a creator, using the "evidence" of the universe. Now that this isn't working out so well for you, you insist "I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself..."
Your failure is noted.

Yes, and that challenge was about evidence for a Creator, not proving His existence. I can't help it if you read what you want to read instead of reading what I wrote.

 

[Czernobog]

Six against one. That doesn't seem like very fair odds. I think you guys need to get more guys, lol.

Why? You're failing just fine with just the six of us. Seems to me it is you who should go find some backup.

I don't believe I need it. I'm pretty happy.

Well, good for you. It's nice to know that you are pleased with your failure.

 

[ding]

No. That analysis can still be made irregardless of whether or not you know that it was created. In fact, that is the entire point of all of this to determine whether or not there was a Creator. We only have the box and what is in it to make our determination. We don't have access to anything that is out of the box. You are making an interpretation of the evidence argument which is no different than what is done at any trial. What you are really trying to do is exclude evidence because you don't want to face the argument that your bias has already confirmed to be invalid. That is why I say you are not secure in your own beliefs. If you were, you wouldn't fear the argument and try to exclude the evidence. In effect you want me to argue for the existence of God without being able to use the only tangible evidence I have available to make my argument.

No, it is you who are trying to confirm your bias. You have a box of stuff. You assume that box of stuff is evidence of a creator. Why? Why do you make that assumption? I repeat my question: You can infer things about the nature of Bulldog, based on the cart that he built, correct?

There is really nothing more I need to add or want to add.

But I'm the one being dishonest, and afraid to have their bias exposed. LOL.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes. That is correct.

Says the guy who keeps running from his own failure.

I don't believe I have. I believe that was you when you couldn't even acknowledge your own experiences.

 

[ding]

Six against one. That doesn't seem like very fair odds. I think you guys need to get more guys, lol.

Why? You're failing just fine with just the six of us. Seems to me it is you who should go find some backup.

I don't believe I need it. I'm pretty happy.

Well, good for you. It's nice to know that you are pleased with your failure.

Like I said before, I'm pretty happy. You seem to be the one chasing me. We don't chase things we don't want.

 

[Czernobog]

You don't have to prove the entire universe. Prove that one flower was created.

lol, I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself, just like you don't need to prove anything to anyone but yourself, right? I'm not sure I am following your request. Can you explain what you are asking me to prove.

Except the entire purpose of your OP was that you can prove to others the existence of a Creator. Now, you acknowledge that you can't.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Maybe you should re-read the title of the thread.

The title of the thread be damned. You started this thread as a direct challenge to me, and in post #20, and #21 specifically called me out so that you could demonstrate your brilliance, and prove to me the existence of a creator, using the "evidence" of the universe. Now that this isn't working out so well for you, you insist "I don't have to prove anything to anyone but myself..."
Your failure is noted.

Yes, and that challenge was about evidence for a Creator, not proving His existence. I can't help it if you read what you want to read instead of reading what I wrote.

So, the purpose of such evidence, which you also failed to provide incidentally, would be what, precisely?

 

[Czernobog]

No, it is you who are trying to confirm your bias. You have a box of stuff. You assume that box of stuff is evidence of a creator. Why? Why do you make that assumption? I repeat my question: You can infer things about the nature of Bulldog, based on the cart that he built, correct?

There is really nothing more I need to add or want to add.

But I'm the one being dishonest, and afraid to have their bias exposed. LOL.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Yes. That is correct.

Says the guy who keeps running from his own failure.

I don't believe I have. I believe that was you when you couldn't even acknowledge your own experiences.

I never failed to acknowledge my own experiences. I merely pointed out that those experiences do not provide what you claim they do. That is your failure.