TAG argument, fails

[RandomVariable]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

EEEEEYUP!

The good old, it's too complicated to have happened by chance™, argument.

It is not that it is too complicated. It is that it is too sophisticated. When trying to find God look for that which goes above what would happen otherwise, wherever and whatever that might be.

 

[G.T.]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

They can't conclude the mathematical chance accurately.

They don't know how common or uncommon life is in the universe, and so the probability for life is not able to be calculated. Its just guess work beyond knowing all of the variables, which we do not. Where we can currently see and study in the universe is a speck of sand out of all of the worlds beaches combined.

Life could be as common as corruption in politics.

 

[RandomVariable]

Its not a lie simply because your mind can't understand it, sorry dude. Fuck I look like caring what a troll thinks anyhow.

Do you care what God thinks?

I don't have a conclusion if god even exists.

Do you care what a gigantic squirrel with man arms and horse legs, on steroids and in the WWE, thinks?

Same applies.

Yes, because if a gigantic squirrel with ...etc. thinks then he exists. Wow! I think we are back to where we began.

 

[turzovka]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

They can't conclude the mathematical chance accurately.

They don't know how common or uncommon life is in the universe, and so the probability for life is not able to be calculated. Its just guess work beyond knowing all of the variables, which we do not. Where we can currently see and study in the universe is a speck of sand out of all of the worlds beaches combined.

Life could be as common as corruption in politics.

So you are saying science cannot arrive at any variables or the odds of such a variable occurring? Science can only reasonably prove those things which support your argument, only? That presumes you and I have an equal mastery of the material as a highly educated scientist. Because many scientists have walked away from atheism based on their discoveries and on their educated conclusions.

Such as this recent brilliant chemist ---

Renowned Chemist Says Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life Christian News Network

 

[G.T.]

Its the same idea. I don't know if god exists or doesn't. Its kind of pointless to worry about or fear what potentially is a fairy tale. Life's too short. And if god exists...that's his fault, too.

 

[G.T.]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

They can't conclude the mathematical chance accurately.

They don't know how common or uncommon life is in the universe, and so the probability for life is not able to be calculated. Its just guess work beyond knowing all of the variables, which we do not. Where we can currently see and study in the universe is a speck of sand out of all of the worlds beaches combined.

Life could be as common as corruption in politics.

So you are saying science cannot arrive at any variables or the odds of such a variable occurring? Science can only reasonably prove those things which support your argument, only? That presumes you and I have an equal mastery of the material as a highly educated scientist. Because many scientists have walked away from atheism based on their discoveries and on their educated conclusions.

Such as this recent brilliant chemist ---

Renowned Chemist Says Evolutionists Do Not Understand the Origin of Life Christian News Network

No, I'm saying that in order to calculate the odds of life sprouting up in the universe, you have to first know how much life there is(in the universe).we don't. Its kind of pertinent in that sort of calculation.

 

[RandomVariable]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

They can't conclude the mathematical chance accurately.

They don't know how common or uncommon life is in the universe, and so the probability for life is not able to be calculated. Its just guess work beyond knowing all of the variables, which we do not. Where we can currently see and study in the universe is a speck of sand out of all of the worlds beaches combined.

Life could be as common as corruption in politics.

That is pretty common all right. The angle which I believe better illuminates the matter is even if we are 100x smarter than the next most intelligent creature on the planet, which we are far from, would we have developed the way we did without being created in the image of God?

 

[RandomVariable]

Its the same idea. I don't know if god exists or doesn't. Its kind of pointless to worry about or fear what potentially is a fairy tale. Life's too short. And if god exists...that's his fault, too.

But there is a reward in understanding God. It is more than just knowing the first 12 digits of pi or anything. God is, well, God. Your life will be better with God than without. The concept of Jesus throws this whole thing off unfortunately. It corrupts the concept. There is a reason the Bible, Old Testament, states, repeatedly, 'do not make an image of me', 'do not worship idols', 'do not believe changes to the word of Moses'.

 

[G.T.]

God making my life better or not is not a compelling reason to believe in something without a rational basis.

I don't base major life decisions on emotionalism.

 

[Hollie]

Its the same idea. I don't know if god exists or doesn't. Its kind of pointless to worry about or fear what potentially is a fairy tale. Life's too short. And if god exists...that's his fault, too.

But there is a reward in understanding God. It is more than just knowing the first 12 digits of pi or anything. God is, well, God. Your life will be better with God than without. The concept of Jesus throws this whole thing off unfortunately. It corrupts the concept. There is a reason the Bible, Old Testament, states, repeatedly, 'do not make an image of me', 'do not worship idols', 'do not believe changes to the word of Moses'.

When did this become a thread for your worst impression of Jimmy Swaggert?

 

[RandomVariable]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.

No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?

 

[RandomVariable]

Its the same idea. I don't know if god exists or doesn't. Its kind of pointless to worry about or fear what potentially is a fairy tale. Life's too short. And if god exists...that's his fault, too.

But there is a reward in understanding God. It is more than just knowing the first 12 digits of pi or anything. God is, well, God. Your life will be better with God than without. The concept of Jesus throws this whole thing off unfortunately. It corrupts the concept. There is a reason the Bible, Old Testament, states, repeatedly, 'do not make an image of me', 'do not worship idols', 'do not believe changes to the word of Moses'.

When did this become a thread for your worst impression of Jimmy Swaggert?

I guess I would consider it a pretty good impression given the fact I had to look up who that was. I am not kidding when I say before the first blood moon I did not even know what a Bible was.

 

[turzovka]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.

No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?

That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.

The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.

 

[RandomVariable]

The Transcendental argument for god, or the TAG argument, is as follows:

1. if there's no god, knowledge is not possible
2. knowledge is possible
3. therefore god exists


It's proponents arrogantly claim that any argument against TAG proves it: because you're using knowledge/affirming it exists. This is demonstrably false, because you haven't yet agreed that god is necessary FOR knowledge; therefore, USING knowledge does NOT prove TAG.

Using knowledge only proves TAG if* you presuppose THAT GOD IS NECESSARY FOR KNOWLEDGE, IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you do not presuppose this, you do not prove tag by using knowledge.




Further, TAG is viciously circular. Here is the circle:

god is the source of knowledge
knowledge exists
therefore god exists

Using god, to assert god, is viciously circular and is not reasonable(as a proof).


Further, TAG fails to prove one of its premises -> therefore, cannot use it in a rational argument. TAG provides no demonstrated necessity to accept premise #1 - - - - - - that we need god in order to have knowledge. None, zip, zilch, nadda. It is only necessary if you already presuppose it to be true, which again, a circle, not acceptable as a rational proof.

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.

No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?

That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.

The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.

What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?

 

[turzovka]

Did you stop there? Because that argument did not compute for you then what?

God has manifested Himself in a thousand ways. The sheer preponderance of evidence supports all other pieces of evidence. Those who deny God hold on to the idea hyper-complex and orderly life assembled itself by mindless molecules crashing against each other with unbelievable aplomb and success rates. It is the opposite of logic and reason.

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.

No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?

That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.

The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.

What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?

I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?

But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.

 

[PratchettFan]

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.

No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?

That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.

The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.

What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?

I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?

But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.

Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.

Do you have objective evidence?

 

[RandomVariable]

Actually given that mathematics is the fundamental language we use to describe all known reality it is plausible that there is no God using that logic.

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.

No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?

That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.

The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.

What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?

I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?

But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.

Yes, arguments you are not lacking, understanding you are. How do you know God?

 

[RandomVariable]

Well "plausible" now becomes a matter of personal opinion. Many scientists conclude the mathematical chance of a DNA assembling itself in the most precise way necessary for it to function are infinitesimal. Not to mention now the chances get even worse when you consider random chance had to assemble a living cell that has a thousand machines working in harmony within it. Mathematics cannot be your defense.

Note: Perhaps I misunderstood what you were first saying to me? If so, my apologies.

No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?

That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.

The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.

What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?

I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?

But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.

Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.

Do you have objective evidence?

How about my statement that humans would not have developed as we have if we were not created in the image of God? I said 'developed', not 'evolved'.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, that is what I was saying. There is an infinitesimal chance that a rain drop fall on a exact location at an exact time at exactly that temperature, etc, but it happens. In hind sight, it was 100% it would occur, now isn't it?

That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.

The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.

What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?

I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?

But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.

Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.

Do you have objective evidence?

How about my statement that humans would not have developed as we have if we were not created in the image of God? I said 'developed', not 'evolved'.

An unsupported claim. On what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?

 

[RandomVariable]

That's a very strange thread of an argument you are hanging on to, IMO.

The universe is what, 13.7 billion years old? Well you can have 13.7 billion X 13.7 billion years and the Mona Lisa will never assemble itself on canvas through natural processes, much less a human brain evolving from a snail by random nature.

What is evolving is your argument. Did your last one not work out so well? Are we on to human creativity?

I guess I do not follow what you are saying here?

But as far as arguments for the existence of God is concerned, I have hundreds of arguments. What is lacking is an open and honest audience.

Arguments can be made on any side of any subject. They are a dime a dozen. The only thing which matters is objective evidence. Simply pointing to something and saying "See?" does not cut it. You have to be able to demonstrate that the something could not have existed otherwise. So unless you can present objective evidence which you can objectively link to God, then all of your arguments are of no value.

Do you have objective evidence?

How about my statement that humans would not have developed as we have if we were not created in the image of God? I said 'developed', not 'evolved'.

An unsupported claim. On what basis do you claim humans would not have developed?

Is a 'supported claim' something that you have personally seen and touched?