I think we can make the positive claim that nothing like 'gods' exist

[JC1432]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

that was a major genetic fallacy you just ripped off. why don't you refute the evidences, each one i listed, and refute how they do not point to a creator God. that is how a meaningful discussion is supposed to happen. you're just running away afraid of the evidences

 

[JC1432]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

I did refute your assertions. I clearly said that your "listed points" have nothing to do with science. They are either intentional misrepresentations of science or indications of the science illiteracy of the Christian apologists you unquestionably accept as experts.

 

[steve_bank]

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

Supposition and inference based on misrepresenting science is not evidence.

I must have missed it, is jc3142 a creationist? I thought he was a confused philosophizer.

 

[JC1432]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

...

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

I did refute your assertions. I clearly said that your "listed points" have nothing to do with science. They are either intentional misrepresentations of science or indications of the science illiteracy of the Christian apologists you unquestionably accept as experts.

so you are saying that the billion strands of DNA each coded with a 4 letter alphabet in the EXACT order to give instructions and information happened by chance, random mutations and natural selection? the chances of a billion letters just getting in the exact order to give instructions and information is by random mutations and chance. i can't stop laughing!

So you are saying the Anthropic Principle fine tuning, things like the exact precision for oxygen in the air, distance from the sun, expansion rate of the universe, thickness of the earth’s crust, speed of light, nuclear force that holds atoms together, distance between stars, energy density of space, seismic activity, position of Jupiter to protect the earth, earth being in the right place and right time, and up to 100 constants that must be exactly precise to have our life. but it happened by pure chance on ALL the constants. the probability of that is basically 0

the big bang proves that when all matter was created out of nothing, then that thing that created it MUST be immaterial (or super natural). do you refute this? i'll be waiting for your refutations

 

[JC1432]

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

Supposition and inference based on misrepresenting science is not evidence.

I must have missed it, is jc3142 a creationist? I thought he was a confused philosophizer.

yes or no. can matter create itself? if not then do you agree that what created it had to be non-matter (immaterial, super-natural)? if not, then why

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

...

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

I did refute your assertions. I clearly said that your "listed points" have nothing to do with science. They are either intentional misrepresentations of science or indications of the science illiteracy of the Christian apologists you unquestionably accept as experts.

so you are saying that the billion strands of DNA each coded with a 4 letter alphabet in the EXACT order to give instructions and information happened by chance, random mutations and natural selection? the chances of a billion letters just getting in the exact order to give instructions and information is by random mutations and chance. i can't stop laughing!

So you are saying the Anthropic Principle fine tuning, things like the exact precision for oxygen in the air, distance from the sun, expansion rate of the universe, thickness of the earth’s crust, speed of light, nuclear force that holds atoms together, distance between stars, energy density of space, seismic activity, position of Jupiter to protect the earth, earth being in the right place and right time, and up to 100 constants that must be exactly precise to have our life. but it happened by pure chance on ALL the constants. the probability of that is basically 0

the big bang proves that when all matter was created out of nothing, then that thing that created it MUST be immaterial (or super natural). do you refute this? i'll be waiting for your refutations

Other than being ignorant of science, you appear to have serious reading comprehension problems. It is a waste of time to try to hold a discussion with someone who believes they have a deep understanding of science and yet continually proves, through their "points", that they don't have a clue.

 

[JC1432]

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

Supposition and inference based on misrepresenting science is not evidence.

I must have missed it, is jc3142 a creationist? I thought he was a confused philosophizer.

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

...

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet". Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

if you have listen to any pro God intellectual in the last bazillion years, it is not God of the Gaps - that is old school (centeries old) atheist rubbish. it is what we do know that is proclaimed by pro God scholars

All scientific discoveries of the last 50 years all point to a creator.

Big Bang, where all time, space, matter, and energy CREATED instantly out of nothing and not related to space, time, matter, energy. Chance of universe capable of sustaining life through randomness is 1 with 1240 zeros after it. (Dr. Donald Page).

Anthropic Principle: seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants (well over 30 of them) in the physics of the universe, have precisely the exact values you would need if you to have life in the universe.

Cambrian Explosion, where advanced animal life suddenly appeared without any precursors – putting evolution into the grave.

Origin of lIfe

Intelligence in DNA design and structure of information (command, meaning, code, communication) and instructions. Only intelligent beings are known to CREATE information and instructions (like a software programmer

You obviously are only repeating the claims made by Christian apologists. You should take the time to read "what science says" rather than echoing people that have no understanding of science. The things you are claiming 'science says' are not from the actual science.

so you don't want to refute the assertions i made. all the things listed point to a creator God.

I did refute your assertions. I clearly said that your "listed points" have nothing to do with science. They are either intentional misrepresentations of science or indications of the science illiteracy of the Christian apologists you unquestionably accept as experts.

so you are saying that the billion strands of DNA each coded with a 4 letter alphabet in the EXACT order to give instructions and information happened by chance, random mutations and natural selection? the chances of a billion letters just getting in the exact order to give instructions and information is by random mutations and chance. i can't stop laughing!

So you are saying the Anthropic Principle fine tuning, things like the exact precision for oxygen in the air, distance from the sun, expansion rate of the universe, thickness of the earth’s crust, speed of light, nuclear force that holds atoms together, distance between stars, energy density of space, seismic activity, position of Jupiter to protect the earth, earth being in the right place and right time, and up to 100 constants that must be exactly precise to have our life. but it happened by pure chance on ALL the constants. the probability of that is basically 0

the big bang proves that when all matter was created out of nothing, then that thing that created it MUST be immaterial (or super natural). do you refute this? i'll be waiting for your refutations

Other than being ignorant of science, you appear to have serious reading comprehension problems. It is a waste of time to try to hold a discussion with someone who believes they have a deep understanding of science and yet continually proves, through their "points", that they don't have a clue.

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

 

[skepticalbip]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

 

[JC1432]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

 

[JC1432]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

 

[skepticalbip]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

Seeking truth doesn't mean starting with the answer you want then twisting or inventing data to conform to that answer. I prefer the scientific method where the question comes first then data collected to try to find and understand what the answer is even if it isn't what was first thought.

 

[JC1432]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

Seeking truth doesn't mean starting with the answer you want then twisting or inventing data to conform to that answer. I prefer the scientific method where the question comes first then data collected to try to find and understand what the answer is even if it isn't what was first thoug

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

Seeking truth doesn't mean starting with the answer you want then twisting or inventing data to conform to that answer. I prefer the scientific method where the question comes first then data collected to try to find and understand what the answer is even if it isn't what was first thought.

you are not making sense. i state scientific facts first then let you tell me how to interpret the data, 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates information and instructions over a billion letter strand in the exact order, then ask you if that happened by chance and random mutations....of course you get laughed at if you say yes. then i asked you if matter can create matter. true to your form, you refused to answer simple questions.

then i told you about the anthropic principle, that went way over your head. these facts are not twisted but highly recognized and accepted facts of science. so you lied about me.

and just to show how out of touch you are, the scientific method cannot answer all questions. not even the vast majority of them. not everything is a repeatable, observable, lab based event. many are one time events that happened in history that you can't replicate (like the big bang)

 

[skepticalbip]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

Seeking truth doesn't mean starting with the answer you want then twisting or inventing data to conform to that answer. I prefer the scientific method where the question comes first then data collected to try to find and understand what the answer is even if it isn't what was first thought.

you are not making sense. i state scientific facts first then let you tell me how to interpret the data, 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates information and instructions over a billion letter strand in the exact order, then ask you if that happened by chance and random mutations....of course you get laughed at if you say yes. then i asked you if matter can create matter. true to your form, you refused to answer simple questions.

then i told you about the anthropic principle, that went way over your head. these facts are not twisted but highly recognized and accepted facts of science. so you lied about me.

and just to show how out of touch you are, the scientific method cannot answer all questions. not even the vast majority of them. not everything is a repeatable, observable, lab based event. many are one time events that happened in history that you can't replicate (like the big bang)

The fact that you fail to understand does not mean I am not making sense. You don't understand because you are starting with the answer you want then offer your misunderstanding of science, apparently believing, "I don't understand therefore god". That isn't just circular reasoning but is intentionally forced circular reasoning.

Even if DNA sequencing wasn't understood (which it pretty much is) it wouldn't be an indication of a god but an indication that more research was needed to understand. Your ignorance of DNA is even less of an indication of a god.

 

[JC1432]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

Seeking truth doesn't mean starting with the answer you want then twisting or inventing data to conform to that answer. I prefer the scientific method where the question comes first then data collected to try to find and understand what the answer is even if it isn't what was first thought.

you are not making sense. i state scientific facts first then let you tell me how to interpret the data, 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates information and instructions over a billion letter strand in the exact order, then ask you if that happened by chance and random mutations....of course you get laughed at if you say yes. then i asked you if matter can create matter. true to your form, you refused to answer simple questions.

then i told you about the anthropic principle, that went way over your head. these facts are not twisted but highly recognized and accepted facts of science. so you lied about me.

and just to show how out of touch you are, the scientific method cannot answer all questions. not even the vast majority of them. not everything is a repeatable, observable, lab based event. many are one time events that happened in history that you can't replicate (like the big bang)

The fact that you fail to understand does not mean I am not making sense. You don't understand because you are starting with the answer you want then offer your misunderstanding of science, apparently believing, "I don't understand therefore god". That isn't just circular reasoning but is intentionally forced circular reasoning.

Even if DNA sequencing wasn't understood (which it pretty much is) it wouldn't be an indication of a god but an indication that more research was needed to understand. Your ignorance of DNA is even less of an indication of a god.

hahahahaha go back to where ever your are and continue to think dna letters and information and instructions do not exist. honestly, i don't have time wasting on people like you that blabb nonsense say big bang, anthropic principle, information in DNA don't exist. it really is a waste of my time. so good bye

 

[bilby]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

Give the guy a break, at least he knows how to use capital letters and punctuation.

He also doesn’t tell other people that they think things he has no reason whatsoever to imagine that they think.

I believe you are absolutely correct in your assertion that one of the two of you lacks the education to effectively participate in this discussion; But I am highly doubtful that you have correctly identified which.

 

[bilby]

...

ignorant of science? so you are saying there is not a 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates instructions and information? if that is not the case, can you tell me specifically instead of doing logical fallacies through ad hominem attacks.

are you saying there are not many exactly precise constants in the universe and earth that if any on were off by a trillionth then we would not have life. are you saying that happened by chance? i would love to see the probability calculus on that one if you can tell me the chance of all that happening.

bottom line is you have ZERO ability to refute the scientific claims and you refuse to do so. i asked a simple question about what created all matter in the big bang and you refuse to answer it. this is clear evidence that you are the one unwilling to hold an intelligent dialogue and run away with ad hominem attacks

Listing things that you don't understand and your lack of knowledge of what science does understand of them is hardly a substantial argument. Though, apparently, you are continuing the tradition of "I don't understand therefore god".

wow so you think there is a 5 letter alphabet in DNA and chance created information in dna.....and you have no clue on the Anthropic fine tuning constantsi can't stop laughing for your lack of scientific education.

WOW back at ya. It may be a good thing that your church knows nothing about the Mandelbrot set otherwise your church may worship Benoit Mandelbrot as god incarnate... unless they understood the 'magic' of iterative math equations.

so you obviously are not seeking truth by diverting and running away. you could care less if you are living your life based on lies and consequently making bad decisions on bad information. i guess you really don't care to have the best for yourself. nice life i feel so sorry for you

Seeking truth doesn't mean starting with the answer you want then twisting or inventing data to conform to that answer. I prefer the scientific method where the question comes first then data collected to try to find and understand what the answer is even if it isn't what was first thought.

you are not making sense. i state scientific facts first then let you tell me how to interpret the data, 4 letter alphabet in DNA that creates information and instructions over a billion letter strand in the exact order, then ask you if that happened by chance and random mutations....of course you get laughed at if you say yes. then i asked you if matter can create matter. true to your form, you refused to answer simple questions.

then i told you about the anthropic principle, that went way over your head. these facts are not twisted but highly recognized and accepted facts of science. so you lied about me.

and just to show how out of touch you are, the scientific method cannot answer all questions. not even the vast majority of them. not everything is a repeatable, observable, lab based event. many are one time events that happened in history that you can't replicate (like the big bang)

The fact that you fail to understand does not mean I am not making sense. You don't understand because you are starting with the answer you want then offer your misunderstanding of science, apparently believing, "I don't understand therefore god". That isn't just circular reasoning but is intentionally forced circular reasoning.

Even if DNA sequencing wasn't understood (which it pretty much is) it wouldn't be an indication of a god but an indication that more research was needed to understand. Your ignorance of DNA is even less of an indication of a god.

hahahahaha go back to where ever your are and continue to think dna letters and information and instructions do not exist. honestly, i don't have time wasting on people like you that blabb nonsense say big bang, anthropic principle, information in DNA don't exist. it really is a waste of my time. so good bye

Mate, seriously, invest in a mirror.

 

[Learner]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet".

I go along with the above.

Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

Understandable, IF trying explain purely from a biblical point of view, where the default is: God created everything etc.. A diffrent conversation.

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

Atheist often using humanesque traits or characteristics of the biblical God, who seems to be bound by physics. Hence the notion, that this god "would be detectable". The bible clearly says God is a spirit! What is a spirit? No one actually knows what elements a spirit is supposed to consist of. That doesn't cause theists problems, not to know the precised inner and outer workings of such an entity. We aren't expected to know those details according to the bible anyway. In this regard to the fine detatils " We don't know."

 

[skepticalbip]

Philosophical gods are a key element of a rather pathetic argument that boils down to “OK, you can prove my God impossible; But you can’t prove this hypothetical entity that I invented for this discussion impossible, and I am declaring it to be a god, therefore gods are possible, therefore my God is possible after all”. They have no other purpose, nobody believes in them, and nobody thinks that they even exist.

This seems to be the fundamental issue of the thread.

I am still waiting for someone to come up with a definition of their god that isn't included in my list of 'gods which cannot exist'...

How about adding to your list, a God that is far beyond the comprehension of the mere mortal brain. The type of entity that doesn't neccessarily need to do things on the scale, scaling down to where humans can only try to observe from - a scale 'made easier just to fathom, conceptually.

You are proposing a god that is "outside the universe" and affects nothing inside the universe that can be detected by humans? In other words a god that is completely irrelevant to humanity?

There should be those god type propositions brought to the table. The gods within the universe, who are limited to the physics and physicality, often suggested by atheists, that gods should be defined by, You might as well call these gods advanced aliens from distant civilisations then,

WTF does that even mean? A philosophical concept of some god that is not detectable and that does nothing is no different to humanity than no god.

It means you're proffessing to be wise, (using a biblcal term, generally anyone with the notion). I find this quite remarkable. There are a lot of things that is said not to be detectable but they're believed to be there i.e,. dark matter etc.,.But you can somehow detect if there is such a thing as god guided as it seems to me, by a desired personal definition (a somewhat limited entity) that is fathomable.

Such things as dark matter are detected by indirect methods, their effect. It isn't yet understood exactly what it is thus the label 'dark matter'. And yes, there are things that we don't yet understand fully but we admit "we don't know... yet".

I go along with the above.

Religious cling to the age old explanation for anything not understood of "god did it". As more is learned about the phenomena, the "god did it" is replaced with understanding.

Understandable, IF trying explain purely from a biblical point of view, where the default is: God created everything etc.. A diffrent conversation.

The problem with that "explanation" is that if it is assumed to be the answer then there is no further investigation so no advancement of understanding and knowledge. Thankfully we no longer have religions in control of governments. When they were, people were put do death for investigating for a better answer for phenomena than "goddidit".

You still haven't offered a description of what you believe your god is so it can be discussed. The continual mis-statement strawmen you offer of other's positions is not helpful.

Atheist often using humanesque traits or characteristics of the biblical God, who seems to be bound by physics. Hence the notion, that this god "would be detectable". The bible clearly says God is a spirit! What is a spirit? No one actually knows what elements a spirit is supposed to consist of. That doesn't cause theists problems, not to know the precised inner and outer workings of such an entity. We aren't expected to know those details according to the bible anyway. In this regard to the fine detatils " We don't know."

You either don't understand the question or are being deliberately evasive. The question was not what you think atheists think theists mean by 'god'. In fact, I have only seen atheists repeat and challenge what some theists say about their belief of their god.

The question that you continue to evade was what do you mean by god? What specifically do you believe your god does? How? Are you a Biblical creationists so believe god "poofed" humans into existence? Do you believe the Biblical account in the creation story? etc. Or are you more of a Deist that believes in a god that only started the universe then stepped out of the picture and let it run as it may without any further actions? If your god something else then what?

So far, you are only willing to say what you don't believe your god is.