Quantcast

«

»

Dec 31 2011

So Many Claims, So Little (No) Support…

This letter was to Matt, so I opted not to reply. But also, if I did reply, I wouldn’t have much more to offer beyond, “I’ve never seen anyone offer up such a lengthy list of claims that included no attempt at offering even one shred of support.” Does Guinness have a category for something like this?

In addition to offering no support for anything asserted, s/he makes the mistake of capitalizing “atheism” throughout (see Austin Cline’s blog on this issue for further info on why this demonstrates a misunderstanding of atheism, and note the letter writer does not capitalize theism, so this is clearly quite deliberate on his/her part). The writer goes on to play “bait the atheist” by pretending Matt really does know a god exists, but for whatever reason, is saying otherwise.

Finally the person threatens to call the show. I can only say, “Please, please do.” S/he asked us to read this on the air. But honestly, it’s just preaching with no evidence or support offered—and we’re not The 700 Club, and since no evidence or support was provided, what would we examine? The rebuttal to the entire lot would be “you offered nothing to support anything you claimed.”

At any rate, without further ado, I bring you, more unsubstantiated claims and assumptions than you can shake a stick at:

I love the show..

First of all, full disclosure. I believe in GOD!

I also believe that you must all repent and accept GOD or else you will burn in hell. Especially that Tracie woman who thinks she’s just so smart quoting scientific findings as if it were biblical doctrine not realizing that GOD is laughing and saying “I made the elements behave that way stupid!” “What you call scientific discovery is you coming around to uncover my genius, well done”

You’re not going to hell for you yourself being an unbeliever but for the offense of using half-truths and deception to turn others away from GOD. I’m not saying that to hurt your feelings. I’m telling you because I care about your souls.

I can’t condemn you for not believing in GOD since you say that you’re on a quest for truth and by virtue of that, you are on the road to eventually acknowledging and accepting GOD, however long it takes, however many episodes you make, however many scientific theories you quote. Eventually you will realize all scientific knowledge and wisdom comes from GOD.

GOD gave us a mind to study these things and emotions to feel. When your callers say they believe in GOD because they feel it, that’s not some bullshit. There are scientific studies made on intuition and ESP human means of non-verbal communication.

I think that you make a very important contribution to theism in that you force theists to use stronger arguments to reinforce their belief. And the more I read and hear about Atheists and the more I watch your show the stronger my faith becomes and the deeper the hole you all dig for yourselves.

I find that you like beating the uninformed, unsophisticated people over the head with biblical inconsistencies and disputes over morality and evolution. You also like pointing to atrocities done in the name of GOD but that reflects poorly on man not GOD. And also just for your information way more people died under Atheist GODLESS government like 110,000,000. Add another 50 million due to Hitler as it is widely accepted now that he was hostile to the church and practiced in the occult. This is course is not a defense of so-called Christian inspired atrocities.

When you make human beings into a some lesser form of animal, you give rise to these types of governments. When you yourself don’t see yourself of having been intelligently designed with purpose in mind why should any government? That’s where your inherent dignity and human rights come from.

Take GOD from the equation and governments can do to you as they will, since you’re just a human animal without any inherent dignity no real rights, just a biological organism that consumes resources and farts and poops. A herd of cattle to be managed without regard to any so-called “rights”. This is the world you would have us live in.

You also talk about priests having sex with young boys. But the fact of the matter is that child sexual abuse is prevalent everywhere. There are child molesting sports coaches, teachers, babysitters wherever there’s an adult in a position of authority over a child. There’s all kinds of molesting in the Jewish and Muslim faiths. Muslims believe a child aged 9 is suitable for marriage. Child sexual abuse is despicable everywhere.

I think your problem is with the bible and with Christianity and with organized religion in general, I get it. But you don’t really have a problem with GOD itself. And that’s why I’m not going to quote to you scripture which you say is flawed anyways, which in itself doesn’t disprove GOD only reflects MAN’S inability of fully understanding and misinterpreting divine revelation. Only stupid people think stoning their children to death is what GOD wants.Again that’s MAN”S flaws.

You want GOD because you challenge others to show proof for something which is totally beyond our current scientific ability but we’re working on it. GOD communicates to us through our hearts. Moral law is encoded in DNA and written in our hearts.

That’s why you Atheists despite believing in GOD, believe in morality, which itself comes from GOD. Matt said I don’t need stone tablets to tell me how to be moral, of course not! You’re forced to understand morality because of it being encoded in your DNA and eventually that truth will lead you back to GOD.

You can have a direct relationship with GOD without organized religion. You can acknowledge a supreme creator without belief in biblical doctrine. You’ve closed your minds to that possibility, You’re not as open minded as you claim on each episode.

I believe in science and evolution. The world is several billion years old. Human beings evolved. These things in themselves don’t disprove GOD. And I wish more theists would embrace and acknowledge scientific discovery. There will be a time when all theists will take science away from you Atheists and it truly will be the pursuit of uncovering GOD’s genius.

Science proves GOD everyday. Scientific discovery is the uncovering of GOD’s genius. There’s no way you can observe the universe in its’ immense complexity and sheer scope and say it’s all just a bunch of random bullshit.

You’re open to all kinds of unproven scientific theories. You believe in the Big Bang theory. Until you can recreate it, it’s just a theory under strict scientific definition. But it’s generally accepted and you still believe it. You’ve opened your mind to it. How the fuck are you going to recreate that and make it demonstrable?

Why not open your mind to the theory of a supreme creator. Forget the bible, forget organized religion and the Christian church. What’s so unscientific about acknowledging intelligent design?The greatest scientists of all time were theists, men and women who believe in GOD and work to uncover GOD’s genius get way further ahead in discoveries. The science of GOD is becoming cutting edge.

You don’t want to acknowledge and attribute anything to GOD so as to not give credence to an inconsistent biblical doctrine and corrupt religious institutions that you don’t like. I get it!!!! There’s room for Atheists and theists alike to demonstrate some more intellectual honesty.

As an Atheist how will you ever find truth when you deny GOD’S genius in everything around you? Avoid hell. Realize the folly of your arrogant ways.

Ask for GOD to come into your life and mean it. Don’t make it a mechanical thing, Don’t just say the words half-ass and claim victory if nothing happens. Let GOD communicate to your heart and mind. That is what is meant by faith.

Matt you say you were a brainwashed Christian for 25 years. Were you really brainwashed? Did you not feel anything during that whole time? You seem too smart to have been brainwashed and so I reject that on its face. Disenfranchised? Disillusioned? Perhaps!

Matt you are working for the devil. You studied scripture. You know full well that GOD created free will and wanted us to choose to worship him. Not to do so like automatons. You know that you don’t have to worship the Devil directly. All you have to do is not acknowledge GOD and you serve the Devil by default. You’re leading spiritually weak people away from the Lord. And that will land you the worst of punishment in hell unless you repent now!

And you better watch out because I will call your show someday and drop all kinds of knowledge and wisdom on you to make you see the truth and error of your ways.

Faith is a key to making miracles happen. OPEN YOUR MIND!!!!!

And don’t lecture me about swearing. GOD cares about what is in your heart more than the words you speak. That’s why he is against mechanical prayer, and my heart is filled with goodness.

Even though I said I think you’re going to hell, will you do me the honor and read this on your next episode? That would be kinda cool.

199 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    davidct

    The indoctrinated mind is such a waste.

  2. 2
    Jaytheist

    Citations needed.

    I had to chuckle at the inconsistency between this:

    ” You want GOD because you challenge others to show proof for something which is totally beyond our current scientific ability but we’re working on it.”

    and this:

    “Science proves GOD everyday.”

    Almost made hot chocolate shoot out my nose with that one.

    1. 2.1
      Skeptico

      I noticed that too. “We’re working on it.” Well, you’ve only had 2,000 years. (Arguably more, but I’m being generous.)

    2. 2.2
      heicart

      Amazing, I agree. The mental gymnastics and the compartmentalization. If I hadn’t been a believer myself once, I’d probably not believe it’s possible for a person to think this way.

    3. 2.3
      JD

      Quantum Revelation or Quantum “Kool-Aid?”

      “I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, “But how can it be like that?” because you will go “down the drain” into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped.” –Nobel physicist Richard Feynman

      Feynman’s quote almost seems to suggest we ought to look away and disregard the evidence that a new theory of the universe that involves consciousness is called for-something that explains the apparent interconnections between consciousness and the behavior of quantum particles. Robert Lanza describes this behavior of mainline science as “being thrown off the trail (referencing the mythical Sherlock Holmes) by the prejudices of three-hundred years of science.” Lanza adds; “The reason scientists go ‘down the drain into a blind alley’, is that they refuse to accept the immediate and obvious implications of the experiments. This dichotomy between conceptual and physical reality continued with a vengeance even with the advent of quantum mechanics. Despite the central role of the observer in this theory-extending it from space and time to the very properties of matter itself-some scientists still dismiss the observer as an inconvenience, a non-entity.”
      Lanza mentions “the obvious implications of the experiments,” but what experiments could these possibly be?
      Quantum physics deals with things like entanglement where particles, separated by even the breadth of a universe, exhibit an interconnectedness that defy light-speed barriers. Then there’s the two-slit experiment, where the nature of a particle is determined by a conscious observer. Will the particle behave like a wave of potentials or the deterministic and classical model we are all so familiar with (wave particle duality)? Then there’s the counter-intuitive and seemingly absurd topic of superposition where the same object can be in two or more places at the same time.
      Quantum phenomena defy our concepts of causality, space, and time, and our presuppositions that we are independent of the things we see around us. Consciousness and subjective elements are primal players in this “material” world.
      All of this “magical” behavior seems to suggest that light itself takes on a form of consciousness. If this is true, consciousness is at the most basic and fundamental level of the universe and therefore lends credence to Lanza’s and Russell’s belief that consciousness is a primal feature of reality and not just some secondary material spin-off derivative from random blind forces. Ontological reductionists believe that the mere act of observing mechanisms and laws in the universe somehow explains them away without giving thought as to why it can or should be that way in the first place.
      Imagine a discussion between an atheist mechanic by the auspicious name of Pierre-Simon Laplace and his client, Mr. Lennox, who brought his pristine Model-T Ford in for mechanical repairs. The mechanic is quite gifted in his science but his knowledge of the evolution of the automobile is quite limited. A dialogue ensues as Laplace pops the hood and inspects the engine…
      Lennox: I’ve had this charmer for many years now and she’s always been faithful to me when I do my road shows. I guess even ole’ Henry Ford couldn’t design the immortal machine
      Incredulously, Laplace asks….
      Laplace: Henry Ford? Who is that??
      Lennox: Are you kidding me? Henry Ford was the engineer and designer of this sweetheart.
      Laplace: Indeed! With all due respect sir, I see no need to conjure up a “Henry Ford” to explain the workings of this vehicle. And any mechanic worth his salt would also have no need for such a silly hypothesis. Here, let me take a closer look…
      Laplace tucks his head under the Model T’s hood and inspects its many component parts and takes an especially close look at the block and its pistons…
      Laplace: Why, there’s no need to evoke a Henry Ford! With all due respect sir, any fool can see this engine runs on internal combustion. As for “Ford,” and as I said before, I have no need for that hypothesis.
      Merely observing mechanisms hardly accounts for their origins. Laplace had made a category mistake between mechanism and agency. He felt compelled to choose between the two and thought it inelegant to do otherwise. But mechanism is not agency: You need both to account for the Model T-Ford and you need both to explain life in all its myriad forms. You can call the agent God or something as nebulous as primal consciousness, but only direction and intention could realistically explain teleological complexity, the universal constants ripe for life, and the mystery of subjective experience evolving out of unguided dead matter as Laplace would insist.
      Primal consciousness is a concept compatible with John Hagelin’s theories of a“unified field.” Hagelin is a quantum physicist who finds parallels between eastern spiritual concepts and quantum phenomena. Mainstream science likes to write him off as this mystic who drank the “quantum Kool-Aid.” But when I read some of his views I sensed or intuited there was something to what he was saying. He writes about how fundamental reality at its smallest (the quantum level or even smaller), is actually unified as one. As particles work their way up into our larger, classical world, they manifest into the illusion of separation. This, at first, sounds very “woo-woo,” but many world class physicists know this to be fundamentally true. Even a brick layer knows that the house he builds is only made of many smaller bricks. Remove just one or two of the bricks in the right location and the entire house will be compromised. Without the negative and positive charges to demarcate the many boundaries between us and the objects in our environment, reality as we know it would be a swirling, frothy sea of atoms with no boundaries to distinguish one object from another. And those who have experienced an altered state, albeit with drugs or a naturally occurring near death experience, will testify that reality is, indeed, one. For them, the boundaries do disappear.
      Hagelin also makes a profound observation concerning the vessels that contain the greatest power in our universe. He shows how larger objects in our natural world cannot exhibit the release of power that a chemical and molecular level reaction can. And the splitting of a hydrogen atom will release even more immense levels of energy. How is it that the smallest particles in our universe harbor the greatest power? I believe this suggests that particles are fundamental to the larger macro-molecular world and are inextricably tied in to the larger reality. Everything truly is, one.
      We are under the assumption that only complex neurological systems complete with brain and spinal cord could possibly account for consciousness as an epiphenomenon of algorithmic calculations. Dr. Stuart Hameroff, a leading proponent of microtubule processing in the brain, contends with this classic materialist model and supports his conjecture by pointing out that research demonstrates that even a paramecium can learn-this is an organism devoid of any complex neurology. And even less complex specific proteins unwind our DNA like master engineers and all without a brain!

  3. 3
    burro

    Matt, since you’re going to HELL, would you mind picking up some of those super spicy pulled pork tamales while you’re there, and a few tubs of the habanero salsa. It’s a New Year, and the tamales will be just the thing to bring it in right.

    Feliz Ano Nuevo a usted y El Diablo. Vaya con Alicia. She’s got a full tank of gas and the credit card.

    Vamos.

    1. 3.1
      piero

      Feliz año nuevo. Ano means “anus”, año means “year”. On the other hand, somebody might enjoy getting a happy new anus. Haemorrhoids sufferers, perhaps?

      1. LykeX

        How very appropriate. After all, as we read in 1 Samuel 5:9

        And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts.

        1. piero

          LOL!

  4. 4
    Tim M

    The real irony here is that according to the morally bankrupt doctrine of eternal security that Matt once followed he is assured of heaven even as he leads untold masses to hell.

  5. 5
    davidct

    “There are scientific studies made on intuition and ESP human means of non-verbal communication.”

    And these experiments were convincing to whom. Just something else you need “faith” to believe in. When a person lacks critical thinking skills, the misinformation they will accept only multiplies. When it comes to gullibility, he seems to be well rounded.

    1. 5.1
      heicart

      Again, agreed with this comment as well. They’ll reject a huge body of research debunking claims such as these, and then latch on to one study that publishes results they agree with–without considering *how* to explain the discrepancy (as if methodological problems couldn’t be the culprit). In general, if you look for the professional feedback on deviant results, you will nearly always find where the problem lied in the deviant findings.

      1. Luke Jackson

        “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance with his instincts, he will accept it even on the slenderest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” – Bertrand Russell, Proposed Roads to Freedom

  6. 6
    gfunk

    This one really smacks of troll. The opening alone made it hard for me to take seriously-makes me suspicious it is a fan of Tracie who is making sure she will read this (which would be flattering to such a troll).

    And I love the closing, really sounds like a youngish fan that is just screwing around.

    1. 6.1
      heicart

      I actually caught that as well. It would be “so cool” to hear us read your letter on the show? Unless you’re a fan who will be watching when it’s read, live, how would you even be aware if we did? However the headline was in all caps and addressed directly to Matt, so if he’s a fan of any particular host, I’d have to say it’s Matt the writer is enamored with. I found it interesting as well they say something about my appeals to science, since I’ve only had one or two presentations I’ve ever done that used citations from scientific research. I’m one of the hosts who generally brushes science aside to say that even if science never existed, I fail to see how that’s evidence for god’s existence. So, I’m not sure what they saw or were addressing with regard to the comments about me. It’s possible as well they confused me with Jen (as it’s oddly common, even though we don’t look alike).

  7. 7
    Orlando

    Just curious, if the poster accepts evolution – that man evolved from, well, pond scum, does he then not believe the Adam and Eve story? Because these ideas of how humans came to be are contradictory. And, if no Adam and Eve, then how does he explain original sin, and the necessity of Jesus?

    But I agree that if we want to get all scientific and mathematical, one could state that god = the square root of -1.

    1. 7.1
      Mary2

      I’m with you on this one. On the one hand he says he believes in evolution, on the other hand he links abuse of human rights directly with the belief that humans are lesser animals.

      I would honestly love to know how humans can be both separate from animals and evolved from them. At what point did God add the soul? Do Neanderthals have souls? I really would love to understand this.

      1. Orlando

        This is something the catholics, who accept evolution, ignore or throw pixie dust on. Without Adam and Eve their entire sin-redemption scenario goes out the window. Yet Adam and Eve were made from mud, and did not evolve. Nor did the rest of the biblical humans.

    2. 7.2
      Klebbenator

      God equals i?

      1. Orlando

        Aye!

  8. 8
    Justin Bonaparte

    Only got through the first few paras. I can’t really believe it’d be worth reading the rest.

    1. 8.1
      Daemon6

      Same here, I just couldn’t bring myself to be interested after the first few.

  9. 9
    wvbishop

    What is with this “GOD created free will and wanted us to choose to worship him” line I hear so often? I know the idea of worshiping an individual, idol, or god is a human construct, but why? Is it just an outgrowth of our general angst with unpredictability of life and the idea of death? I have three daughters and could hardly think of anything more unseeingly as to want (or have) my daughters worship me. At best I can only hope for respect, but I have to earn that daily. What kind of individual (or god) would want to be worshiped? I don’t get it.
    I moved from a deist to an atheist about 125 pages into reading the Bible. It was so obvious that the Bible was written by men to control men/women and address their broader angst about life’s uncertainties. With the Bible’s credibility thrown out, I could no longer logically conclude there was a god. I acknowledge my arrogance with this statement, but it seemed so obvious to me. This is what frustrates me with believers. Sometimes I just like to cut to the case with believers and ask: what evidence would you need to not believe in a god? Their answer reminds me the power of indoctrination.

  10. 10
    arensb

    without further adieu

    Either this is a very subtle way of saying “don’t let the door hit you on the way out”, or you misspelled “ado”.

    1. 10.1
      heicart

      Ooops. And thank you. I’ve corrected it. I would love to claim it was a typo, but it was pure ignorance on my part.

  11. 11
    Tyler

    “God created man with free will”

    Groan. Really? REALLY? How is this even an argument? I mean surely even a theist can recognize the problems inherent with giving us free will without the knowledge of good and evil and even expressly forbidding us from obtaining it and the punishing us forever after humans DID obtain it.

    “GOD cares more about the what’s in your heart more than the words you speak”

    That’s a new one to me. I seem to remember a rule about speaking certain words in the ten commandments, but I’m a godless heathen, so what do I know.

    I always get a kick out of people that decide that they like the idea of God but then feel like they know yahweh better than the people who wrote the bible. There’s such a dishonesty there. Your god cares more out whether or not you flip on a light on th sabbath than he does about child rape. Its a simple as that. He is the same yesterday, today an forever.

  12. 12
    Makoto

    “Until you can recreate it, it’s just a theory under strict scientific definition.”

    Under strict scientific definition, the word “theory” doesn’t mean what this letter writer seems to think that it does.

  13. 13
    ChaosSong

    The way he capitalizes “GOD” leaves be to believe that it’s an acronym for something along the lines of “Good Old Denial”

  14. 14
    patrick m

    I got to 14 unsubstantiated claims in the first 3rd of the letter and couldn’t bother to count anymore.
    If s/he is right hell will be pretty cool. Matt,Tracie I’ll see you there and introduce you to my wife and cats.(my cats are atheists to)

  15. 15
    Raven

    I’m really sick of theists who can’t tell the difference between secular humanism and Stalinism. It’s rather like not being able to tell the difference between Al Quaeda and Unitarians, and doesn’t reflect well on their intelligence.

  16. 16
    jacobfromlost

    Michele Bachman: “There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in Intelligent Design.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Damah0KH-Co

    See? A little support like that from scientific experts relayed via hearsay from a very trusted person like politician Michele Bachman is proof positive that there are hundreds of Nobel Prize winning scientists who have conducting falsifiable experiments via peer review that conclusively demonstrate Intelligent Design is true.

    What? You want evidence that these scientists exist? That their studies have won Nobel Prizes? That the evidence is available to all?

    You have the GALL to question the flat assertions of crazy weirdos?

    Good luck with that. I live my life believing every crazy thing Michele Bachman, and people like her, say. And if they contradict each other? I pray about it and believe the one that I want to believe the most, which is how I know that is what god wants me to do.

    (Satire alert for the satirically impaired, lol.)

    Also, when will Bachman get the Nobel Prize for discovering that Down’s Syndrome is not congenital, but rather acquired? (insert own joke here; it just writes itself)

  17. 17
    Steven

    I’m sorry, I couldn’t stand to read more than half way through. I’m always so bummed that I can’t attend Austin events and meet the cast, but hey I guess I’ll see you all in hell! ^.^

  18. 18
    mephistopheles

    mmmmm. . . I can’t wait for h/iem to “drop all kinds of knowledge and wisdom on you.” What a great tease– because said knowledge/wisdom was kept so cleverly hidden in this diatribe. And “to make you see the truth and error of your ways”. . . I’m especially looking forward the disposition of what s/he perceives as “the truth. . . of your ways.” Should be a real hoot.

    I saw only one “fuck” and one “bullshit” in the letter. (I could be wrong on this.) A little concerned about a lecture on swearing, are we? Thank FSM that all the really important bases are covered in this epistle on matters of eternal life and torture.

    Speaking of eternal torture, a query: since hell is basically an eternal barbecue in the lake of fire, what constitutes “the worst punishment in hell?” It’s all burning and it’s all infinite, so exactly how do the variations in the degree of punishment come into play?

    Just wondering.

    1. 18.1
      heicart

      Perhaps s/he thought Dante’s “Inferno” was a manual? :)

  19. 19
    LykeX

    There are so many things wrong with this, you could write a novel on the subject. I’ll just hit a few points:

    using half-truths and deception to turn others away from GOD

    Like what? I’m sure that if you could actually point out a mistake in anything the hosts have said, they would happily offer a swift correction. I wouldn’t be surprised if they even thanked you for pointing out the error.
    On the other hand, when you simply make this vague accusation without anything to back it up, it’s unlikely that you’ll receive anything but ridicule. And rightly so.

    There are scientific studies…

    References, please. Anyone can claim that there are studies supporting their position. Honest people cite those studies.

    I find that you like beating the uninformed, unsophisticated people over the head with biblical inconsistencies and disputes over morality and evolution

    It’s an open call-in show. The hosts have no control over who will call. Feel free to contact a better representative of your faith and get them to call in.

    You don’t want to acknowledge and attribute anything to GOD so as to not give credence to an inconsistent biblical doctrine and corrupt religious institutions that you don’t like. I get it!!!!

    No, you really don’t. We’re not in the business of denying facts to support a dogmatic position and the problem with the concept of god is not that it could be used to support untenable ideas.
    The problem is that it IS an untenable idea.

    1. 19.1
      Kel

      “You want GOD because you challenge others to show proof for something which is totally beyond our current scientific ability…” That’s precisely why agnostics/atheists don’t believe in God. There is no proof, and until there is proof, we cannot say there is a God with any certainty. We are not denying God, we just have a disbelief in God. If evidence came forward, we would of course, alter our opinions. But you don’t just believe in everything and wait for it to be disproved. Scientists are only concerned with things that are testable and falsifiable. And so we make no assumptions about God. If you use faith rather than reasoning, we might all believe in leprechauns and unicorns, too. The burden of proof lies with the claim-maker. I am not saying I know there is not a God definitively, I am saying that I cannot in good knowledge make the claim that God exists with any amount of certainty. He may, but based on my experiences and observations, I see no signs of the supernatural. Also, regarding the big bang theory, we know the observable universe is expanding… It’s about being a skeptic and yes, being open-minded, but also being a critical thinker. It’s a lost art these days it seems.

  20. 20
    jacobfromlost

    “The problem is that it IS an untenable idea.”

    Right. The god idea doesn’t even have to be considered in a religious context. Consider it a hypothesis like any other in reality, and examine the hypothesis. How does the evidence for it look different than the evidence for contradictory supernatural claims…or from nothing at all?

    If the “evidence” can support anything contradictory, imaginary, unfalsifiable, false, unknown, or unknowable, then it is NOT EVIDENCE. Someone is just throwing the word “evidence” around to give credence to their assertions, while ignoring the fact that they picked one conclusion from the “evidence” when there is in fact a very, very long list of contradictory, imaginary, unfalsifiable, false, unknown, or unknowable nonsense from which they are picking ONE because they like that one, or identify with it, for whatever reasons that have nothing to do with finding truth.

  21. 21
    Garnetstar

    Tracie, I think it’s true that you will especially burn in hell, even more than Jeff will. Because you quote hard scientific facts.

    You know, like “Moral law is encoded in our DNA”.

  22. 22
    mond

    I would like to congratulate the emailer for stating;

    “Only stupid people think stoning their children to death is what GOD wants.”

    That is a fine sentiment. Now it would be great if s/he can reject the rest of the nonsense posited by theism.

    Every journey starts with as single step.

    1. 22.1
      LykeX

      I would like to ask him, why? Why is that stupid?
      After all, he apparently thinks that it’s completely reasonable for god to send people to hell. Hell, by all accounts, is much worse than being stoned to death. So, why exactly is stoning bad? By what standard is he judging stoning to be bad? What method is he using to come to this conclusion?

      Actually, I don’t think that it’s a fine sentiment, because I don’t think he came to that conclusion by any sensible method. I think he had an emotional reaction to the idea of stoning children, decided to reject it and then attributed that to god. It’s not essentially different from people who have an emotional reaction to, say, homosexuality and decide that god doesn’t like that.

      1. mond

        The whole reason that I used the word sentiment was to suggest an emotional response.

        An emotional response can (on some occasions) lead to a sensible outcome.

        eg. If I am disgusted by a putrid piece of food, then my initial emotional response may lead me to discard the food.

        Maybe I should have said that I think it is a fine emotional response to the idea of stoning children.

      2. LykeX

        Stoning children isn’t wrong because I feel yucky about it. It’s wrong because it hurts people. If I felt perfectly ok, it would still be wrong and many people in fact do feel perfectly ok about it. As such, emotional responses are a piss-poor way of establishing an ethical system. That was the point I was getting at.

        I don’t disagree that it’s nice that he’s not for the stoning of children, but I still think it’s missing the point. You can’t establish what’s moral or stupid by what you find personally distasteful, even if it sometimes leads you to the right conclusion.

      3. LykeX

        Added clarification:
        I don’t think we disagree as such, it’s just that I think the emphasis ought to be on a different point, i.e. how to organize a sensible ethical system.
        From that point of view, the position that you shouldn’t stone children because it feels yucky is no better than the position that you should stone children because it’s fun. Either is irrational and indicative of a style of ethical thinking that he should have left behind in kindergarten.

        1. mond

          To add my own clarification.
          My initial comment did have an amount of sarcasm directed at the emailer. (Congratulating someone for recognising that stoning children is a bad thing)

          But you did raise an interesting point about how this conclusion was arrived at. If all you have is the emotional response and nothing to else, then you are on very shaky ground.

          I think certain emotional responses can be a spur to examine why we should logical want to take certain actions. In the food example, putrid food could damage our health. In the stoning children example, killing our offspring is harmful to them as individuals and to the continuation of the species.

          I know this type of thinking could lead to post hoc rationalisation of bad decisions base purely on emotion.

  23. 23
    WCG

    “Especially that Tracie woman.”

    Huh? “That Tracie woman” is GREAT. Well, I suppose he just means that she’s too effective. But she also seems to be eminently fair and willing to hear what the callers have to say (before she ruthlessly demolishes their claims).

    OK, I’m a fanboy, I guess. Heh, heh. Seriously, all of the hosts are great, but lately, I’ve been especially glad to see Tracie Harris on the show.

  24. 24
    Jay

    it’s hard not to suspect poe. Even though they state “First Off… I believe in GOD” what they actually stated first was that they love the show. I don’t know. But I don’t think very many theists, even the unhinged ones, pay much attention to the show.

  25. 25
    joancoletti

    jeez louise what a long-winded blow hard!!! such effort for such nonsense!!! can you imagine if this person put all this effort used into trying to convince others about their “invisible” friend and re-directed it to make life on earth NOW more tolerable and instead of threatening others about burning in hell!!! crazy chrisitans!!! would be happy to simply laugh at them if they were’nt so damn dangerous!!!! you gotta love the hubris though of him/her – could you read this on your show cuz that would be kinda cool- uuuh no it wouldn’t be cool – no one wants to listen to your unsubstantiated rant – not here anyway – i think as the blog replied – you are looking for the 700 club-

  26. 26
    tosspotovich

    Nice one Orlando: mathematically speaking god can be described as the square root of -1.
    Klebbenator, as I’m sure you’re aware “i” is an imaginary number, which is no doubt what Orlando meant. It is also the identification of self which is how gods are typically conceived. I may borrow that.

    1. 26.1
      Orlando

      Feel free to use it and take credit. Spread the meme!

  27. 27
    fargleblargen

    All of this drivel only becomes relevant if you accept the baseline assumption that your Christian “scripture” is truth.

    I won’t claim to have read nearly enough of the Christian bible to wholly represent my opinions here but the same argument can be made against your opinions.

    The quoted paragraph below will help explain my perspective. Take each sentence individually. Some are personal assumptions based on your belief and some are regurgitated and para-phrased scripture, but all are based on the assumption that scripture has to be the truth.

    “Matt you are working for the devil.” (says whom? You or your scripture? No empirical truth to this.)

    “You know full well that GOD created free will and wanted us to choose to worship him.” (according to your scripture, sure. And are we talking old or new testament? Because those two vary greatly both in what god expected from humans and in how he treated them. Anyway, no empirical truth to this.)

    “Not to do so like automatons.”(personal assumption or preacher speak? No empirical truth.)

    “You know that you don’t have to worship the Devil directly. All you have to do is not acknowledge GOD and you serve the Devil by default.” (is that in your Christian scripture or did that come from one of your preachers too? Either way, no empirical truth to this.)

    “You’re leading spiritually weak people away from the Lord.” (are these “spiritually weak” people not entitled to think and decide for themselves? Sounds like you want them to just accept, as you already have, that scripture is the truth because it’s written down in a popular book and preached to you by what you consider to be authority figures. Again, no empirical truth to this.)

    “And that will land you the worst of punishment in hell unless you repent now!” (This is probably more influence from your scriptures and preachers, which still is non-authoritative in my opinion because there is no empirical truth to this.)

    If you’re really honest with yourself, you’ll realize that you have just as much proof that a god does exist as atheist have proof that a god doesn’t exist.

    I believe that being an atheist isn’t about not wanting to believe in a god, or about wanting to be right and proving Theists wrong. Its simply about not being able to believe in a god because there isn’t enough true, scientific, empirical data to prove it.

    Thanks for reading my opinions,
    Love what you can, appreciate everything else.

  28. 28
    pyrobryan

    Wow. I’m at a loss for words. I especially like the part about the big bang being ” just a theory under strict scientific definition.” Yea, good job understand the strict scientific definition of the word theory.

    Thanks for the lulz.

    1. 28.1
      s0l0m0n

      pyrobryan,

      The Big Bang is nothing. The universe is actually created in a complicated process only known by God, either by a big bang(which I did’nt think so) or by a slow process, who knows. I wonder if everything starts with a big bang, then a roast chicken would have taste like charcoal or we would not have inherited this beautiful earth.

      1. LykeX

        I wonder if everything starts with a big bang, then a roast chicken would have taste like charcoal or we would not have inherited this beautiful earth.

        And I “rant rubbish”?

  29. 29
    Green Jelly

    God equals square root of -1.
    God equals i.
    God equals the lower case letter of the pronoun for self, normally capitalized.
    God is every individual, in their most humble form.
    i can live with that.

    1. 29.1
      pyrobryan

      I’m not even sure what you’re going for there.

    2. 29.2
      LykeX

      God is every individual, in their most humble form.
      i can live with that.

      That sounds all well and good, except for the fact that there’s absolutely no reason to call it god and that doing so encourages the kind of double-think that religious bullshit thrives on.

      1. s0l0m0n

        LykeX,

        Can you please explain to me why it can’t be called God. Don’t just rant rubbish!

      2. LykeX

        I didn’t say that it can’t be called god, I said there was no reason to. Furthermore, there are plenty of reasons not to.

        1) That’s not what the word means. “God” has an established meaning which has nothing whatsoever to do with what Green Jelly was talking about.
        This has several further results:

        1a) You’re going to have to explain what you mean every time you use the word. No one will understand you if you don’t. After the explanation, most people will say “well, if you didn’t mean “god” then why did you say “god”?

        1b) Many religious people will simply assume that you’re supporting their idea of god, even though you’re talking about something else entirely. They’ll feel validated in their beliefs and feel more comfortable going on to shove their shit down the throats of others.

        2) It provides cover for the kind of sleazy, mealy-mouthed apologists who say one thing when they’re in a debate and another thing when they’re preaching to the flock.
        It reinforces the idea that “god” doesn’t actually mean “god”, even though everybody in their home church knows that they mean “god”.
        Follow? Which lead to point 3:

        3) Why the fucking hell would we want to make language any less comprehensible? Isn’t the purpose of language to communicate? Doesn’t it fundamentally undermine the purpose if we start using the same word for completely unrelated ideas? There are already plenty of those kinds of words. We don’t need to deliberately invent more.

        You’re of course perfectly free to ignore my post and use the word with that intent. I just think it’s stupid.

        1. heicart

          Well said. I wanted to add that, since there are no “like” buttons on the comments.

          1. Orlando

            By my equation I was saying god is imaginary. Don’t know where all that self stuff comes in.

    3. 29.3
      s0l0m0n

      Green Jelly,

      The truth is,
      God = ‘nothing’

  30. 30
    tosspotovich

    Just to clarify what I meant about gods and self identification is that we humans create gods to appear like ourselves and they “happen” to want exactly the same things that we do. I was not trying to legitimise god concepts or redefine terms.

  31. 31
    jarimakela

    I have always been baffled by the free will argument by evangelical people.

    If we have a free will and god wants to let that be so (which in itself is highly suspect by just reading the bible, Moses anyone?).

    Then by what authority are the religious trying to convert me? Are they not just fighting against the will of god by doing so?

    And on the flip side, if we do not have a free will from god. Our views are set by god making any attempt to convert us fail as it is against the will of god.

    So in both cases the conversion attempts go against the god they claim to follow. Makes it kind of peculiar way to obey gods word to try to change what god has set out to be.

    But then again, that is hardly news.

  32. 32
    johnklein

    Every time I read something like this it strikes me how happy I am that even if there was an eternal life I won’t be spending it with people like this. If this is a “true Christian” and people such as this would hypothetically fill heaven who on earth would choose to come along?

  33. 33
    s0l0m0n

    LykeX,

    Would you kindly explain for implying that I rant rubbish.
    A big bang or an explosion will leave everything in pieces would’nt it? Then how come of all other planets only this one tiny planet is beautiful and in order? Don’t think rubbish.

    1. 33.1
      LykeX

      A big bang or an explosion will leave everything in pieces would’nt it?

      You do realize that the big bang wasn’t an explosion right? No, I guess you don’t. Maybe you should read up on the basics before you start making a fool of yourself. Oh wait, too late.

      Then how come of all other planets only this one tiny planet is beautiful and in order

      First off, you have a truckload of unspoken assumptions in there. I can’t really be bothered to decipher your crap, so let’s boil it down to the basics:
      Your critique of the big bang is that not every planet in the solar system is exactly like ours.

      Other planets have order, just not our kind of order. Other planets are beautiful, just not the same way as ours. Furthermore, the generation of planets have nothing to do with the big bang. The big bang came long before that.
      Of course, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, I wouldn’t need to say that.

      I strongly encourage you to spend some time studying these things before you make any further proclamations on the nature of life, the universe and everything. You might come off as less of a moron. Might.

      1. s0l0m0n

        LykeX,
        Don’t think I’am naive regarding the teory of the lousy big bang, the so called ‘expansion’ of the universe.No one would term a “Bang” with a slow steady process. Unbelievers have got it all wrong in the first place by associating the big bang with an explosion later change their mind by terming it to be a slow expansion process[unbelievers(atheists) allways do that]. Despicable!
        Don’t try to sell your cheap stuffs here. Everything is in the palm of my hand.

        “Other planets have order, just not our kind of order. Other planets are beautiful, just not the same way as ours. ”
        This statement is just one lousy crap.Even an ape would recognize how different in every expect this earth is.Stop your bluffing.

        1. Shawn Smith

          Don’t think I’am [sic] naive regarding the teory [sic] of the lousy big bang, the so called ‘expansion’ of the universe.

          Well, you’ve given us no evidence that you have an even rudimentary knowledge of the Big Bang theory. For an introduction for the layman, you can check out Ethan Siegel’s blog.

          No one would term a “Bang” with a slow steady process. Unbelievers have got it all wrong in the first place by associating the big bang with an explosion later [sic] change their mind by terming it to be a slow expansion process[unbelievers(atheists) allways [sic] do that].

          Well, Fred Hoyle was the first to coin the term “Big Bang” as a disparaging term because he was a proponent of the steady state theory. Hoyle has been shown to be wrong.

          Don’t try to sell your cheap stuffs [sic] here. Everything is in the palm of my hand.

          What the fuck does that even mean? I am not in the palm of your hand, I am part of everything, ergo, “Everything is in the palm of my hand” is false on its face. You really should lay off the weed, dude. Or if you’re unable to do that, sharing is much more neighborly.

      2. LykeX

        I see that you’ve been doing some googling. Good for you! Too bad you didn’t do a little bit more of it.

        Unbelievers have got it all wrong in the first place by associating the big bang with an explosion later change their mind

        Nobody ever claimed that the big bang was an explosion. There was no “changing their mind” involved.
        You might say the name was poorly chosen, but that’s the way of popularization. The intent, according to Fred Hoyle, was to distinguish it from the steady-state model of the universe. No scientist has ever claimed that it was an explosion and the explanation of what was meant by the term has always been available to anyone with the time and energy to study it.
        Just because you were too lazy to look up what it actually meant doesn’t mean you get to accuse others of dishonesty.

        Even an ape would recognize how different in every expect this earth is

        Yeah, that’s what I said; our planet is different. The fact that it’s different does not invalidate the big bang theory anymore than me being different from my brother invalidates the idea of heredity.
        Furthermore, your claim that things being different means they are less ordered or less beautiful is just pathetic. Yes, our planet is different. So what?

        I’m not the one bluffing here, smeghead. You’ve opened up on a subject where you clearly have only the most tenuous grasp on the ideas involved. And of all the places to do that, you pick this site? You’re in for a big surprise. And an ass-kicking.

        But, please, go ahead and explain why you think the big bang theory should imply that all planets be identical. I’m sure it’ll be amusing. Kind of like one of those videos, where the stupid guy is hit in the balls with a bat.

  34. 34
    s0l0m0n

    LykeX,

    “Yeah, that’s what I said; our planet is different”
    Your description of ‘different’ as if you throw a set of dice and expect one, I repeat,only one of it is totally different from others in countless various forms. Please explain the very(x10^infinity) slim probability of it.

  35. 35
    LykeX

    I’d love to see you eplain how you got to that probability. For one, please delineate the possible paths of development for a planet. You don’t just get to claim that it’s improbable, you have to show it.

    You see, in many areas, it would be downright impossible for other planets in this solar system to be like ours. Liquid water, for example, is only possible in a relatively narrow band. Too far from the sun, water freezes, to close and it evaporates. The majority of planets would necessarily fall outside this zone.

    Without liquid water, you don’t have oceans (obviously), you don’t have life (at least not anything resembling our kind), you don’t have our kind of atmosphere (since life has had a major impact on the chemical composition of the atmosphere).
    You see, these factors are not independent (they’re not separate dice, to use your tortured analogy). They all follow from a single fact; our position relative to the sun. And since, by definition, no other planet could possibly have the same position (they’d crash into us, obviously), then it follows that, by definition, all other planets will be very different from ours.

    What I’m getting at here is that it’s really not as improbable as you seem to think. And no, I’m still not convinced that you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

    1. 35.1
      s0l0m0n

      Lykx,

      You’re not explaining, you’re just finding excuses. You think you can get away with your lame excuse. Now explain of all this vast universe,how come only a one tiny planet suddenly happens to be in an orbit belt that perfectly suited it to have all the necessary condition for it to become as what it is now, plenty of water, oxygen and other gases and life all at once?

  36. 36
    s0l0m0n

    Oooppss….sorry..

    Lykx should be LykeX

  37. 37
    LykeX

    Well, if you want to keep opening the question up, I’m we’ll soon get to a point where I can no longer answer your questions. Of course, that doesn’t really say much about the theories in question, only about my knowledge. Luckily, we’re not quite there yet.

    Now explain of all this vast universe

    We’re talking about the whole universe now? We don’t know enough to talk about the universe. We have very limited information about other solar systems, especially when it comes to planets of our size. It’s entirely possible that the universe is over-flowing with planets just like earth. Until our methods of detection improve, we don’t know, either way.
    As a result, I was talking about our solar system. The one system we actually know about in any detail.

    how come only a one tiny planet suddenly happens to be in an orbit belt

    Again, if you’re claiming that the earth is the only planet in the universe placed in the Goldilocks zone, then you need to provide some evidence of that claim. If we modify your question to just deal with this one solar system, then the answer is obvious.

    If one planet occupies a given location, no other planet can be there. On the other hand, given the mechanics of planetary formation from the initial accretion disk, planets will form around the central star. They will form a certain distance from each other, dictated by their size. It simply wouldn’t be an option to have a system identical to our system minus the earth. It couldn’t happen, since there would be no planet to such up the remaining material. The left-over material would by necessity form a planet. That planet would by necessity be at or around our position and equal to or near our size.

    plenty of water, oxygen and other gases and life all at once?

    Again, these are not unrelated factors. Given the existence of life on a planet, there must be water and oxygen. In fact, much of the atmospheric oxygen is here only because of plants that produced it. In fact, there are really only two major factors: The presence of liquid water (which is explained by our position relative to the sun, see above) and the presence of life. The origin of life itself is still problematic, both because it’s lost in time, but also because we’re the only example we know of, but it’s being worked on.

    Let me repeat, that we know of. Very important. Just because we don’t know of other life doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Especially since, as mentioned above, we do not yet have the methods and instruments to reliably detect planets like our own.

    Of course, you being as ignorant as you are, not to mention dishonest, none of this will make the slightest impression on you. I say dishonest, because you don’t seem at all like you’re interested in a serious, honest discussion about these subjects. You’ve continually jumped from one thing to another, being shot down at every turn and yet never admitting your mistakes or lack of knowledge.
    You started with the big bang. When it became clear that you didn’t know what the term meant, you tried to cover it up, by accusing scientists of obfuscation. When that didn’t fly, you hastily changed the subject to planetary formation and now that that’s not working out, where will you go next?
    I imagine you’ll try your luck at the formation of life, possibly extending into the area of evolution (you do know that those are separate topics, right?). When your initial, hopeless attempts are laughed out of court, you’ll try to get all advanced, quoting some ID people. Dare I hope that you’ll try an unconventional angle, like Bigfoot or UFOs? Who knows, but I’m sure it’ll be hilariously inept, just like everything you’ve written so far.

    Good thing I’m really not writing this for you, but for myself. I find that it helps to clarify my own thinking and make it clear if there are areas I should work on more. So, thank you for that opportunity.

  38. 38
    erika

    HA HA she so up her ass its funny,how can you have morals in your DNA?a guy can be the best christian in the world but in the back of his head he wants to rape that little boy walking on his neighborhood,of course he doesnt do it for the fear of going to hell.. come on its not a matter or bealiving or not, its the matter that you should be a good person because u want to not bc god says to be one, shes a fucking moron….people who belive in god are weak minded and they NEED to believe in something when shit gets rough and if god is so good would he let a priest touch a kid? i doubt it but apparently he does because he doesn’t exist! ..half of the people that are religious ARE SO IGNORANT…its unbelievable.
    this dude said this i forgot his name but it was the best line i have ever heard..
    (It offends me that an invisible god is given credit for every good thing that happens in the world, while every evil is blamed on humanity)

  39. 39
    s0l0m0n

    LykeX,

    It’s crystal clear that you could not answer the core of my question by going round & round explaining the things that is out of the real issue.Anyway I can accept your sincere confession of your slim knowledge of the subject.
    So let me now reveal the truth that you might not know yet.First, Jesus is not God.There is one true God almighty.Its he who brought out the undisputed and well reasoned creation theory.
    So without doubt the earth is very distinct of its difference from the other planets is because God with his might & intelligence created it that way.There’s no other reason that could challenge it.

  40. 40
    LykeX

    @solomon

    You know, saying “I’m right, you’re wrong” stopped being an effective debate strategy somewhere back in kindergarten. Either go back there or change your behavior.

    The points I made were indeed relevant to the issue, explaining your misconceptions about the uniqueness of the earth and the reasons for it. If you disagree, you need to argue for your point. You can’t just state it and think I’ll give a crap.

    I’m indeed not an expert on any of the subjects I’ve discussed so far. I’m nothing but an interested layman. Yet, I clearly still know more than you. That ought to tell you something.

    Anyway, I’m happy to leave all that aside if you’ll simply provide evidence for the claims you’ve now made:

    1) There is a god
    2) This god created the earth

    Please provide me with some more entertainment by feebly attempting to “argue” for your position.

    1. 40.1
      s0l0m0n

      OK Lykex,

      1. There is a God.
      2. This God created (not just) the earth (but everything).

      You can find all this claims in the “true book”.

      1. Jacob

        And why should we believe in this book of yours?

        1. s0l0m0n

          Jacob,

          We should believe in the true book because it tells the truth.You can check on its truthfulness. It can’t be refuted.

          1. Jacob

            Oh ok, so merely asserting that it’s true makes it true. Got it.

  41. 41
    s0l0m0n

    Points to ponder:

    God purposely created the earth in such a manner even in a very very slim form or chance for it to be that way is to knock some sense into humans of how wondrous or powerful & intelligent he is.

    1. 41.1
      Jacob

      Stalin created the Trans-Siberian railroad to knock some sense into Russians about how beautiful and wondrous and intelligent he is.

  42. 42
    LykeX

    1) You don’t get to claim that the earth’s present state is unlikely without showing it. Please refer back to my previous request for you to show how you got your probability.
    In my opinion, we don’t have anywhere near the necessary information to tell what the odds are.

    Allow me to illustrate:
    The only planetary system that we really have any information on is this one. Our solar system contains 9 planets (and associated planetoids).
    Therefore, judging from this solar system alone, the chance of life is slightly over 10%. That hardly qualifies as very unlikely.

    Secondly, given what I’ve explained about the habitable zone around the sun, really it’s only our planet and maybe Mars that could possibly have life. So, out of two possible locations, one developed life. That’s 50%.

    Of course, these numbers are meaningless, since we have no way of knowing how common the configuration of our solar system is and the calculations might change drastically once we visit even a single other system, never mind the whole galaxy. But then, that’s the point: we don’t know. I don’t know and you don’t know.

    When you don’t know, the correct response is to admit it and try to gather more information. What you shouldn’t do, and what you are doing, is to make something up and pretend that it’s true. That’s the straight line to being wrong.

    2) “My book says so.” Is that really the best you can do? You’re not even trying anymore.

    This may be a difficult concept for you to grasp, but if you expect people to take you seriously (maybe you don’t, I don’t know), you can’t simply state your opinion. You have to back it up.
    Logical arguments. Evidence. Try some.

  43. 43
    s0l0m0n

    The life forms that hardly exists in the whole universe would’nt make up even a negligible % of what is on earth.Is’nt that amazing and odd. What sort of probability you nag for LykeX?

    1. 43.1
      LykeX

      How do you know that? Been to a lot of other galaxies recently? Last I checked we had no idea whatsoever how much life is out there.

  44. 44
    mike

    And with that nonsensical reply, I think soloman has thrown in the towel. Sad thing is that he’s not even arguing his own ideas, looks like he was shown a book, most likely when he was young, and believes it just because.

    LykeX – you may be a self-proclaimed layman but you made some excellent points, unfortunately they appear to have fallen on deaf ears

    1. 44.1
      s0l0m0n

      Ahhh….typical atheists accusations….
      No need to bother….
      They did’nt even accept reasoning…(deaf hearts)
      ((((HELL))) is a just place for them.

      1. Aquaria

        What a repulsive lying piece of shit you are.

        You were the one telling the typical christarder lies, and got called on it.

        All you religious fuckfaces have is LYING. None of you would know truth if it came up and gave you a brain that wasn’t poisoned with christardery.

        Fuck off, you imbecilic scumbag. You’re lowering the IQ of the entire planet.

        1. s0l0m0n

          Aquaria,

          It’s crystal clear that you will inherit ((((HELL)))).
          If you think your IQ is good enough, then try to make a blob of clay walk on it’s belly.To (((HELL))) you could.There you are,just a fuckin’ piece of shit.

    2. 44.2
      LykeX

      Reasoning? You haven’t provided any reasoning, only unsupported claims. I’m still open to hearing your arguments, if you have any.

  45. 45
    Bribase

    Please, for the love of your GOD, call the show.

  46. 46
    s0l0m0n

    Jacob,

    Your description in comparing God’s creation of the earth with Stalin’s force labour is like comparing a mountain of gold with a disdain dust. Are you out of argument?

  47. 47
    LykeX

    We should believe in the true book because it tells the truth.You can check on its truthfulness.

    Finally! Something relevant. So we can check on it’s truthfulness. Good.
    How do we check the claim that there is a god?

    1. 47.1
      s0l0m0n

      Reasoning tells us nothing would exist without being created. And God claims he created everything.

  48. 48
    s0l0m0n

    That means there is a god who have proven the concept of creation.

  49. 49
    LykeX

    Reasoning tells us nothing would exist without being created

    No, it doesn’t. I don’t accept this idea and if it’s so obvious, you should have no problem demonstrating it. Please do so.

    Also, since it’s been a problem in similar discussions I’ve had in the past, please define “to create”. Do you mean from nothing? Do you consider the rearrangement of existing matter an act of creation? In what sense are you using the word?

    And God claims he created everything.

    I thought the book claimed it?

    Anyway, saying that “god claims…” presumes that this god exists, the very claim you were supposed to demonstrate. That’s a circular argument. Circular arguments are disallowed in logic because they can be used to support anything, regardless of whether the conclusion is actually true.

    Furthermore, even if we accept that a god exists, why should we believe your particular book? There are plenty of book that claim divine inspiration. Why should we believe yours?

    You said that the truthfulness of your book could be checked. Unless you have some personal definition of the word, to “check” means to test or examine. All you’ve done here is to, once again, say that “the book says it, so it’s true”.

    How can we, independently of your belief system, ascertain the truthfulness of your book? You’ve made a claim, now back it up.
    Note that it must be an independent check. If the check itself relies of first believing that the claim is true, it’s not really very relevant. The check must work for a non-believer, or it’s useless.

    I don’t really think you can provide such a check. I don’t think you really thought that much about it. I think you just said whatever you thought would sound impressive and didn’t bother too much with whether it was really true or what to say if someone questioned it.
    Prove me wrong.

    1. 49.1
      LykeX

      And I need to tone down my use of the word “really” :(

  50. 50
    Ex-Muslim

    Haha this guy is just too funny. I deal with so much of this in the Muslim world as well. All talk and absolutely no evidence! Just BS….

  51. 51
    s0l0m0n

    LykeX,

    Why don’t you accept this idea of creation if the reality is in front of you.Ask yourself….how does the simple chair that you have been sitting all this while come to existence? The answer is someone must have created it.Now think about everything else.Now the concept of creation is well proven.Some are done by hands and some are not.

    From nothing God create matter, and the arrangements of this matter including living things, their fate are all initially programmed and recorded, including every leaf that falls from the trees are not left unrecorded.You can also imagine the location or movement of each water atoms or molecules in the oceans at all instances are all recorded and its very simple for God to do that.If you want to know more about the record,it is in the form of a red zicron written in light and by a writing tool made of light.Have you heard such a revelation in other pagan religious books?

    As I’ve said the truthfulness of the true book can allways be checked. Gaze at the sun. God claimed that the sun rise in the east and sets in the west, and till today it does’nt fail to do so.Similarly the rain still keeps falling from the sky up till today.That is also claimed by God in the true book.Who would have the guts to claim those things, who knows suddenly the sun will rise from the north and the rain suddenly stops pouring?

    Its up to us to witness what is said in the true book so that we will have a strong confidence that there is God.

    LykeX….think and think again.Don’t simply accept what your atheists masters orchestrated lies.You still have time before ((((HELL))) awaits you.

    1. 51.1
      Jacob

      LOL. So ok, if everything that exists has to be created, then if God exists, he was created, correct? Who created him?

      Oh yeah, he can’t be created, he’s God right? So not everything is created. Some things are created and some are not. So we have to SCIENTIFICALLY find out how things were created.

      “Gaze at the sun. God claimed that the sun rise in the east and sets in the west, and till today it does’nt fail to do so”

      L.O.L. So any book that makes that claim, all of its claims are true? Or rather, all its supernatural claims are true? So if I found a passage from any classical or ancient literature that made that claim, then by default, Zeus, Apollo, etc, all exists?

      Dude, we want ACTUAL evidence of God existing. A book making a claim isn’t evidence, it never was and never will be. A book that makes claims that we can check its sources and verify its information is true, now that is evidence and good evidence at that. Now please tell me where I can verify everything from Genesis to the Resurrection with ACTUAL evidence (you know, the kind of evidence that’s admissible in peer-reviewed journals, and not theology journals only), or kindly STFU.

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      “LykeX….think and think again.Don’t simply accept what your atheists masters orchestrated lies.You still have time before ((((HELL))) awaits you.”

      If any God exists and sends ANYONE to hell for not believing in him, then that God deserves to go to that hell. Is Stalin justified in sending people to Gulags because they disagreed with him? No? Then why is God justified in sending anyone (who committed the finite crime of disagreeing with another being) to a place infinitely worse than any Gulag? Even if there is a God like that and I was shown direct evidence that this God existed, I’d rather not worship him, could you worship Hitler*infinity?

  52. 52
    s0l0m0n

    sorry….
    red zicron should be red zircon…

  53. 53
    s0l0m0n

    Jacob,

    God is not a thing…he’s a God…
    So he’s not created. He exists on his own.
    Case closed. Wha…ka…ka…ka…See how simple atheists are fooled.

    1. 53.1
      Jacob

      The universe isn’t a thing…It’s a universe.
      So it’s not created. It exists on its own.
      Case closed. Wha…ka…ka…ka…See how simple theists are fooled.

      1. s0l0m0n

        STFU Parrot!

  54. 54
    s0l0m0n

    Other than God is a thing, alive or dead.Is that clear?

    1. 54.1
      Jacob

      Nope, not clear. More like incoherent babbling.

  55. 55
    s0l0m0n

    Those who says the universe is not created is a blatant fool.

    1. 55.1
      Jacob

      Looks like all you’ve got left is ad hominem.

  56. 56
    LykeX

    I notice that you didn’t bother to clearly define your use of the word “create”. As I predicted, because of this, we’ve run into problems already.

    how does the simple chair that you have been sitting all this while come to existence? The answer is someone must have created it

    This implies that you’re using “create” in the sense of reshaping already existing matter into new conformations. However, this:

    From nothing God create matter, and the arrangements of this matter including living things

    Implies creation ex nihilo.

    This is problematic because they’re two very different things. Moreover, you’re using an example of one (a human creating the chair) as part of your argument for the other (god creating the universe). This is called an equivocation fallacy. It is fallacious because it does not follow that qualities of one process is shared by the other, simply because they have the same name. They’re still two very different things.

    Now the concept of creation is well proven.Some are done by hands and some are not.

    I’m perfectly willing to accept the reshaping of intelligent beings. I see it. I do it. I know it’s real. However, the creation of a universe by a god is a process of fundamentally different character. It requires evidence of its own. You can’t simply assert (as you done before and now again) that it’s true. Ex nihilo creation is by no means “well proven”.
    I remind you that you said we could check the claims your book makes. Assertion is not checking.

    God claimed that the sun rise in the east and sets in the west, and till today it does’nt fail to do so

    And if it had suddenly changed, you’d be in here saying, “It’s a miracle. That proves that god exists,” wouldn’t you? In fact, that particular claim has been made. I refer you to the stories of Joshua in OT and the crucifixion of Jesus in NT. In both cases, the sun (supposedly) stopped it’s usual behavior and in both cases it’s claimed as a miracle and evidence for the christian god.

    Furthermore, since the behavior of the sun and rain have been easily observable by all humans since before the invention of writing, it’s not really that impressive that your book got it right. Does your book also reveal that fire is hot, water wet and that beating your head into a wall repeatedly hurts?

    Finally, the truth of any claim is to be evaluated individually. Even if a book gets one thing right, it doesn’t follow that all other claims are correct. This should be plainly obvious. If it isn’t, then allow me to quote from my own book:

    2+2=4
    Also, LykeX is right and solomon is wrong.

    Clear enough?
    Oh yeah, by the way, the BOOK claims. You can’t assert that god claims anything until you’ve demonstrated his existence. We’ve already been over this. Please try to pay attention.

    Those who says the universe is not created is a blatant fool.

    Again, an unsupported claim. You can keep saying it, that doesn’t make it so. I asked you specifically to provide a test for the claim that a god exists. You instead evaded the question and started talking about the sun and rain. I didn’t ask about the sun and rain. I asked about god. Provide the test or retract your claim.

  57. 57
    pyrobryan

    About half way through this conversation I became convinced that Solomon is a troll. Am I the only one?

    1. 57.1
      LykeX

      I’ve been wondering about that myself, but it’s so hard to tell. Let’s face it, if he’s genuine, he’s not the only one.

    2. 57.2
      s0l0m0n

      Typical atheists strategy.Label believers a troll to skip further debates when they’re out of argument.

  58. 58
    s0l0m0n

    LykeX,

    Don’t try to twist the concept of creation. Anything that takes form or shape and have a trace of intelligence like measurements and processes involved are termed creation.The rest of your tricks will be dealth with later.

  59. 59
    s0l0m0n

    I will not be around tomorrow. Don’t think I’ve quit.

  60. 60
    LykeX

    I’m not trying to twist anything. Rather, I’m trying to untwist it, to tease apart two quite separate concepts, that you seem determined to conflate.

    Creation ex nihilo is quite different from reshaping existing matter. Evidence for one is not evidence for another. I think you’re mainly confusing yourself by insisting on using the same word for both concepts. This is a common problem, not restricted to this debate. People call things by the same name and then forget that they’re different concepts. I believe this is a problem due to how our brain handles information.

    Creation ex nihilo, the deliberate creation of new matter from nothing by an intelligent agent is one thing. You have not demonstrated that this has happened, or even that it is possible.

    Creation as the reshaping of existing matter is an established fact. I would imagine that everyone accepts this and it is not the topic of the discussion.

    I’m going to have to insist that you use these terms (or suggest others if you prefer) for the purposes of this discussion. Use of the word “creation” is meaningless if I don’t know what you mean by it.

    Now let’s look at this:

    Anything that takes form or shape and have a trace of intelligence like measurements and processes involved are termed creation.

    This is an inadequate definition. First, you make no mention of agency, which I would think was rather important. After all, if agency is not required, then presumably the universe could have been “created” by a purely impersonal force, not essentially different from the big bang you so disagreed with.
    Second, you do not define “measurements and processes”. Measurements seem to imply someone taking measurements, but, as mentioned above, you don’t make that explicit. Processes is an ambiguous term. The dissolving of salt into water could be described as a process. I presume that’s not what you had in mind.

    Also, “processes” cannot apply to creation ex nihilo. Obviously, there cannot be a process involved in the creation from nothing, since a process implies something. Creation ex nihilo must, by definition, occur in one step, the step from nothing to something.
    And yet, earlier you explicitly said that god create matter from nothing. As such, your proposed definition of “creation” contradicts your earlier statement.

    I’m really not trying to be tricky or annoying here. What I’m trying to do is to make it clear that when discussing things like this, clarity is important. Clearly articulating your position is a prerequisite for any intelligent discussion. Right now, your inability to communicate clearly is an impediment to any further progress.

    I would encourage you to step back a bit and try to remember that we do not share your beliefs and perspective. You’re leaving far too much unsaid in your posts, resulting in a breakdown in understanding. I’m sure it makes sense to you, but you’re not talking to yourself. You’re talking to us. Please adjust your communication accordingly.

  61. 61
    s0l0m0n

    Let me stress,
    Creation or existence of anything can come from nothing and can goes back to nothing.Atheists, unsatisfied & frustated with this unrefutable creation concept develops other forms of ideas just to undermine this creation concept.
    Ex nihilo or what still comes under the concept of creation.

    “Also, “processes” cannot apply to creation ex nihilo”
    This is absolutely wrong.Surely there should be a process in creating from nothing to something.The existence of something out of thin air or space is itself a process.But it’s a very fine & unthinkable processs. Only God have in his knowledge. But God makes it all seems so clear through reasoning.

  62. 62
    s0l0m0n

    Ad hominem or what….it’s a fact.

  63. 63
    LykeX

    Creation or existence of anything can come from nothing and can goes back to nothing

    That something can come into existence from nothing is an established fact. However, your use of the term creation seems a bit like question begging.
    You need to demonstrate that your god did it. You can’t just assert it. I can’t believe I have to keep reminding you of that.

    …this unrefutable creation concept…

    We’re still discussing what exactly you mean by that word. It’s a bit early to call it unrefutable, when we’re not even sure what it means yet.

    The existence of something out of thin air or space is itself a process

    I kinda have a problem with calling something a process when, by definition, it only involves a single step. In the “process” from nothing to something, the moment anything happens, it’s already over, since you will then have something. If you don’t have something, then nothing can happen and therefore no step has been taken yet. It is literally inconceivable that it could possibly involve more than one step.
    So, I have to wonder what exactly you mean when you say “process”. By standard definition, a process is “a series of actions or steps taken to achieve an end” (according to google). Since you’re clearly using a non-standard definition, I ask you to make it explicit.

    Let me try to help things along. I propose the following definitions for the purposes of this discussion:

    Creation – the act of a sentient agent bringing into existence matter/energy from nothing.

    Reshaping – the act of a sentient agent changing matter/energy into a different form, without gain or loss.

    If you can accept these two definitions and stick to them, I think we might be able to move beyond these tedious discussions of definitions and get to the meat of the matter:
    1) Does your god exist?
    2) If so, did he create the universe?
    3) How do we test these claims?

  64. 64
    Jacob

    Ad hominems aren’t facts. You just called people fools for disagreeing with you, that’s not a demonstration of fact. And it’s great that you’ve admitted to ad hom attacks and proving that you’re not worth having a discussion with. Bye.

  65. 65
    s0l0m0n

    I’am not saying ad hominem is a fact. I’am saying “you’re a blatant fool” is a fact.

  66. 66
    LykeX

    But even if it is a fact, it’s still an ad hominem, since whether or not he’s a fool is irrelevant to the argument. That’s the whole point of an ad hominem fallacy: The personal qualities of a person making an argument is irrelevant to the validity of said argument. The argument stands on its own merits, regardless of who makes it.

    As a result, your (yet again unsupported) claim that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool, is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

  67. 67
    s0l0m0n

    The word creation is just one word and would only have one meaning.Either something exist from thin air or space like ‘pooof’ or later transformed into different forms,it is still created, you can’t run from that fact.The ‘pooof’ state that you consider a brief or single step actually undergoes a tedious process made simple by God.As I’ve imply earlier everything that exists is pre-recorded or programmed.A prerequisite for something that is programmed is ‘process’.

    And here’s the answer to your query;

    1)Does your God exists?-YES

    2)If so, did he create the universe?-YES

    3)How do we test these claims?-
    We cannot test God existence coz men does’t have the tools to test his existence. Whaa…ka…ka…ka..sorry …this is funny.
    No…no..we can test his existence by reasoning.And we can also check, its he who create the universe by the claims he made which is always consistent with the laws of the universe, like the sun will always rise in the east and sets in the west, *not rising or setting any way it wishes*.And there’s more revelation regarding the universe that I’am not going to discuss now.

  68. 68
    jacobfromlost

    “1)Does your God exists?-YES”

    Did you god create existence?

    If so, he did it outside of existence (if you exist while creating existence, you didn’t create existence), and the only thing outside of existence is nonexistence. Hence, your god created existence while not existing–a paradox.

    If not, then your god didn’t create existence, existence in some form simply IS, and there is no necessary creator. If there is no necessary creator, then the argument for the existence of the creator is moot.

    Remember, something can’t come from nothing. If god is something, he can’t come from nothing (he has to come from something). If god is nothing, there is no problem and all verifiable observations make sense.

    If existence exists in some form even without space-time and cause and effect (as all evidence demonstrates), then something never came from nothing, and the logical problem of having a god create existence while not existing is not a problem at all. All you have to do is recognize that there is no evidence for the god, and lots of evidence for things that are observable, verifiable, predictive, and falsifiable that all confirm each other even though there is no REASON for them to confirm each other (as they all operate under very different principles) EXCEPT THAT THEIR OVERALL CONFIRMATION IS TRUE. And that overall confirmation is that the god idea is not needed, and not indicated, logically nor empirically.

  69. 69
    LykeX

    Oh for crying out loud. Do you truly not understand that there’s a qualitative difference between the ex nihilo creation of matter and the simple rearrangement of it? If you really see no qualitative difference between the creation of a universe from nothingness and the making of a sandwich from a set of ingredients, I don’t see what kind of discussion we’re going to be able to have.

    They’re different. Not simply in degree, but in essential nature. All I’m asking is that we employ the language to reflect his difference. Previously, you attempted to use the fact that humans make furniture as an argument for the reality of ex nihilo creation. I think your use of language is part of your confusion on this point. If you’d agree to use different words from these two wildly different concepts, then we can move forward. Otherwise, we’re stuck.

    The ‘pooof’ state that you consider a brief or single step actually undergoes a tedious process made simple by God

    Let me try again to clarify my objection. We’re talking about a situation where we’re going from state A, nothing, to state B, something. You claim there are multiple steps in this “process”, I’m saying there’s only one.
    Let’s look at step 1: Either something happens, in which case, there is something and therefore, we have reached state B at the first step. Alternatively, if we haven’t reached state B, we still have nothing and consequently, nothing can have happened.
    The two states, something and nothing, are mutually exclusive. It simply isn’t possible to have a third state. There’s no such thing. As a result, there can be no stepwise process involved.

    As I’ve imply earlier everything that exists is pre-recorded or programmed

    Can nothing be programmed? Obviously not. So, by the time god starts his programming, we’ve already got something, i.e. the “process” of creation is already over. Either the programming takes place only in god’s mind, in which case, we’re still at a state of nothing, or god first creates something and then programs it, in which case the programming phase takes place after and separately from the creation phase.

    I don’t know why you’re so adamant on this point. You’re clearly talking nonsense and it’s not even important for your position, as far as I can see. The only reason I’m bothering with it is for the sake of clarity of language. If you’d just accept the distinction between creating and reshaping, we could skip this whole mess.

    its he who create the universe by the claims he made which is always consistent with the laws of the universe, like the sun will always rise in the east and sets in the west

    We seem to be going in circles here. I didn’t ask how we could test the claims of the sun rising and setting. I asked for a test for the claim of the existence of god. I’m genuinely having trouble seeing why you don’t get this. It’s pretty freakin’ basic. The truth of one claim is not proof of the truth of another, separate claim. It is quite possible for a given source to be right on one point and wrong on another. Each claim must be supported separately.

  70. 70
    Jacob

    lol, you only go in circles when talking with certain theists. I argued over the internet for hours with a Christian, and the base of his argument was that something can’t come from nothing, so then I said that means that God never really created anything (if he existed of course), he just changed already existing “stuff” from one state to another (my argument is that he is then not a true creator, and that if the same could be demonstrated in natural processes then God is unnecessary.) Then he responded by saying something like “Oh well God created everything from nothing”. At that point I was like “then why the f– are you arguing that something can’t come from nothing!!!” Their thinking is so incredibly compartmentalized that we probably have little chance of getting them to see reason.

  71. 71
    s0l0m0n

    Jacob,
    I don’t care what your christian friend says. To me christianity is not a true religion. Some of its revelations is true but a lot is twisted.But for the true religion that I’am sponsoring,the revelations will always be accurate and consistent.

  72. 72
    Jacob

    way to miss the point, dude. You’re hopelessly brainwashed, and I frankly can’t bother with talking with you. You don’t bother responding with anything remotely resembling a respectable response, you just dance in circles after circles with no substance to back up anything you’ve said. I’d rather debate with a parrot than you.

  73. 73
    s0l0m0n

    State which part I go in circles or have no substance if you’re the man of truth.

  74. 74
    LykeX

    State which part I go in circles…

    How about when you repeat the argument that because your book got some facts on the sun right, that constitutes a test for god, even after I’ve made it quite clear why that doesn’t fly.

    We’re still at the same point: provide a test for the existence of your god. You said you had one. Let’s hear it.

  75. 75
    Jacob

    pretty much everything in this thread you’ve not demonstrated the truth of your claims and only repeated or restated them. As LykeX says, you claim that the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is a direct demonstration of God’s existence. Except by that logic, since the Harry Potter books describe London accurately, magic is real, Hogwartz exists, etc.

    Your response earlier in this thread to me had been to restate that God isn’t a thing (which by the way directly redefines God as non-existent), as though that solves the dilemma of an uncreated creator. Except if your logic is that the universe had to be created, that means that God had to be created as he is more complex than the universe (because complex things have to be designed according to you). The only way around this is to say that some things don’t have to be created even if they’re complex, which means the universe could have been not created, ergo there’s no need for a god. (alas, there could be a god, except we don’t have evidence for any god really existing.)

    And the fact that you commit ad hom fallacies does not help any of your arguments. Never has and never will.

  76. 76
    s0l0m0n

    jacobfromlost,

    Firstly does jacobfromlost=Jacob? Just curious.

    ‘Did you god create existence?’(I observe a wrong spelling there)
    It look as if you’re creating the question and YOU answer it yourself.What a very cheap way to imply that its me that initiate your cheap idea.(Typical of atheists)
    Since you’re naive regarding existence…hear this.

    God exist on his own.There’s no beginning and there’s no end.(Your brains can’t accept it right?)Yup, the brains are not design to accept what it thinks is ilogic but the heart or reasoning readily accepts it.

    You got it all wrong regarding existence.You try to associate existence with God existence. God existence is different from other existence as I’ve mention earlier.This can be demonstrated by the following:

    Does the universe have an end? If so how is the end? Then what lies beyond its end? See….your brains can’t imagine it.The brains will always ask for a limit.The brain always compute that everything must have a limit.But your heart will always question what lies beyond its end.

    So with these doctrines I hope you will have a more understanding of what is the reality of things and I guess the rest of your comments requires no need attending or in other words will perfectly fit for the drains.

  77. 77
    s0l0m0n

    LykeX,(for your 13 Jan no. 69 comments)

    Don’t you think creating something from nothing is more difficult then transforming something to other forms?(Which you unrealizingly agre[Do you truly not understand that there’s a qualitative difference between the ex nihilo creation of matter and the {simple rearrangement of it?)] “And if transforming something to other forms requires process, then creating something from nothing surely needs more than process.

    You are trying to differentiate(twist) creation into several forms due to you have no concrete substance to refute it.I sense there’s an attempt to trap me on that note by limiting the creation process.I recon you to stop those useless attempts coz it will arrive you to nowhere.You can never ever refute truth and nothing but the truth.

    “Can nothing be programmed? Obviously not. So, by the time god starts his programming, we’ve already got something, i.e. the “process” of creation is already over.” What are you trying to twist? Where the (((HELL))) do you get this idea? What do you mean by “we’ve already got something”? Let me clarify. First there was nothing except God.Then God programmed every other creation in a record.Then he resumes the creation.Look here…the instant of creation starts with the pen made of light and the record on the zircon…remember.Then creation continues following what is written in the record.I guess this will answer your confusion about creation.

    From your last paragraph you are demanding as if for God to appear in front of your eyes. Ohh…no..no..God is not your slave to follow what you wishes.But God did’nt left his creation in despair or confusion.God states all his revelations and claims in “true book” for you to think it over with your brains and not forgetting your heart to weight and reasoned.

  78. 78
    s0l0m0n

    HI…HO…all Atheists

    All this while you have only been listening to the wrong believes of your masters or atheists friends.Ask from the experts on truth if you have doubt. Its about time you reconsider your beliefs.

  79. 79
    s0l0m0n

    Sorry…
    agre should be agree…

  80. 80
    s0l0m0n

    and also weight should be weigh…

  81. 81
    s0l0m0n

    and last but not least recon should be reckon..

  82. 82
    LykeX

    Don’t you think creating something from nothing is more difficult then transforming something to other forms?

    So you agree that there’s a difference between ex nihilo creation and mere reshaping. Good. Now all I ask is that since they’re difference things, we should call them by different names. Not that complicated, is it?

    And if transforming something to other forms requires process, then creating something from nothing surely needs more than process.

    This argument is bunk. Allow me to illustrate:
    Creation is more difficult than transformation (you’ve already agreed to that). Transformation requires preexisting matter (by definition). Therefore, creation requires even more preexisting matter.
    This conclusion, which follows directly from the same argument you used, is self-contradictory. Obviously, there’s something very wrong here.

    The problem is that a difference in difficulty does not imply a shared characteristic. This is especially true when, like in this case, the increased difficulty is due to a difference in the essential nature of the two phenomena.

    I might add that the approach I just used is a good one for general testing of whether your arguments hold water. Try applying the same chain of reasoning to a different subject and see if it still holds. If it leads to absurdity, as in this case, that should tell you that you’ve made a mistake.

    First there was nothing except God.Then God programmed every other creation in a record

    Stop!

    What is he programming? Is there something that exists beside god at this point? If so, he has already finished doing the creating. The “process” is finished.
    I suggest you try laying out a timeline. It should be apparent that what you’re saying makes no sense:

    1. there was nothing except God
    2. God programmed every other creation…

    Wait a minute, where did those “other creations” comes from?
    …in a record
    And what about that? Did that just pop out by itself?

    Clearly, you’ve left something out of your explanation. The bit you left out was the actual creation part! The bit that was the subject of the whole discussion!

    From your last paragraph you are demanding as if for God to appear in front of your eyes. Ohh…no..no..God is not your slave to follow what you wishes

    I’m not asking anything of god. I’m asking you. YOU made the claim. YOU back it up. Whether that would imply an action on god’s part is really not my problem. It’s your claim, not mine.

    You said god existed. You said you could provide a test for your claims. I’m still waiting.

  83. 83
    s0l0m0n

    LykeX,

    Firstly I want to clarify the terms used in our discussion.My term for creation is actually the creation from nothing to something and the transformation of something to other things.From your comments I understood that you use the term creation is for the creation from nothing to something.(due to confusion or wrong understanding)

    “Therefore, ‘creation’ requires even more preexisting matter”
    This is a much clearer bunk.
    How could ‘creation’(the creation of ‘nothing’ to something)requires existing matter when there is ‘nothing’ during that stage?

    I sense that you’re still in a haze regarding the creation process after multiple explanation or you are just pretending not to, hoping of finding loopholes to counter attack.You will never ever find loopholes in truth.
    How could you guess the “process” is finished when God is just starting to record what things or events he’s going to laid out no matter if there is something or nothing beside God.

    “Wait a minute, where did those “other creations” comes from?
    …in a record”
    Oh my…Oh my…Why is it so difficult for you to understand my explanation.The record is only the planned things or events that God have laid out in the master record(the zircon). From that blueprint the actual events or other creations took place according to what is written in the record. Is that crystal clear?

    I have provide several tests for Gods claims(not mine) but you are too stubborn to accept it! Do you want me to repeat or elaborate on it? Well for truth sake I have no problem.
    A simple test for God’s existence is the revelation or claim by God himself of his existence.This is proved by the creation concept laid out and claimed by God.If you think all the creations exist by itself or by your “god” NATURE, think again carefully.Lets take a simple(to me its not simple at all) creation, a housefly for example.How many billions of process,complicated mathematical calculations,aviation technology, chemical reactions and many other processes involved.And how do you account for the fly able to airborne without any knowledge on flights? Does it knock your heart that all these creations need a one most powerful, most intelligent “being” to think, design and subsequently build it?

  84. 84
    LykeX

    Firstly I want to clarify the terms used in our discussion

    Thank you. That’s what I’ve been asking you to do all along.

    From your comments I understood that you use the term creation is for the creation from nothing to something.(due to confusion or wrong understanding)

    No confusion. It’s just that, as you’ve already accepted, the two phenomena are quite different and as such, I’d prefer to call them by separate names. You’re perfectly welcome to claim that your god does both.

    “Therefore, ‘creation’ requires even more preexisting matter”
    This is a much clearer bunk.
    How could ‘creation’(the creation of ‘nothing’ to something)requires existing matter when there is ‘nothing’ during that stage?

    Exactly! THAT WAS MY WHOLE FREAKIN POINT!
    It’s called a reductio ad absurdum: I used your essential argument to reach an absurd conclusion, thus showing that your reasoning is faulty and your argument therefore invalid. Try to keep up.

    (Actually a true reductio ad absurdum uses the same premisses as the argument to be criticized, but here I’ve repurposed it to critique your line of reasoning from those premises to the conclusion. the effect is the same.)

    How could you guess the “process” is finished when God is just starting to record what things or events he’s going to laid out no matter if there is something or nothing beside God.

    Reading this, I’m guessing that the misunderstanding arises because what you’re terming the “creation process” is actually a series of separate instances of creation. I.e. not the act of creating any particular thing, but the plan of creation as a whole.
    If that’s your point, I’m ok with that, except that it means you’ve introduced a third term that you also call creation. We now have:
    1) The act of creating matter from nothing
    2) The act of reshaping that matter
    3) The whole process of multiple instances of 1 and 2, to form the entire universe.

    And you want to call them all by the same name. I think by now it should be clear why the discussion is so muddled.

    A simple test for God’s existence is the revelation or claim by God himself of his existence.

    God hasn’t claimed anything. You have. Are you actually arguing that the existence of god claims are themselves proof of the truth of those claims? ‘Cos that’s just insane.

    Lets take a simple(to me its not simple at all) creation…

    Begging the question. It’s not a creation until you’ve demonstrated that it is.

    How many billions of process,complicated mathematical calculations,aviation technology, chemical reactions and many other processes involved

    So, your argument finally boils down to “Oh wow, look at that. It’s really complex. Must be god.”
    I don’t need to account for anything. You do. You’re the one making the claim. This is a textbook argument from ignorance.
    When faced with something you don’t understand, you can’t just go “must be god”. You investigate until you do understand it and until then, you withhold judgment. That’s the rational approach, anyway.

    If this was the test you had in mind, then I guess you don’t really have any.

  85. 85
    LykeX

    Does it knock your heart that all these creations need a one most powerful, most intelligent “being” to think, design and subsequently build it?

    Also, we’re back to a point that has been brought up before. If the world is so complex that it couldn’t conceivably exist without a creator (which I think is your argument), then surely that creator must itself need a creator.
    Any being intelligent enough to design the entire universe in all its intricate detail, must surely be very complex himself.

    Your previous response to this was “nuh-uh!”
    Maybe you’d like to expand on that?

  86. 86
    jacobfromlost

    solomon: My term for creation is actually the creation from nothing to something and the transformation of something to other things.From your comments I understood that you use the term creation is for the creation from nothing to something.(due to confusion or wrong understanding)

    Me: You’re going to have to define “nothing”, then, because if you mean the absolute absense of anything, then no one has ever claimed space-time, matter, and energy in our universe “came from” that kind of nothing.

    Solomon: How could ‘creation’(the creation of ‘nothing’ to something)requires existing matter when there is ‘nothing’ during that stage?

    Me: Because you have a fundamentally lack of understanding of what space-time, matter, and energy are. You seem to have some kind of ancient Greek notion of matter that is independent of space-time, and which is not just another form of energy. We know matter is made of subatomic particles, and that these “particles” are not particles in the way you want them to be. From wikipedia: “For physicists, the word “particle” means something rather different from the common sense of the term, reflecting the modern understanding of how particles behave at the quantum scale in ways that differ radically from what everyday experience would lead us to expect.” You really need to do some research into particle-wave duality, and what physicists mean when they say “particle”, “matter”, and “nothing”. (Quantum Mechanical effects don’t need “matter” in the way you think of it, although they can lead to matter as we observe it–and matter as we observe it is also not the way you are using the term “matter” here.)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIDmzLfk0K0

    Solomon: I sense that you’re still in a haze regarding the creation process after multiple explanation or you are just pretending not to, hoping of finding loopholes to counter attack.You will never ever find loopholes in truth.

    Me: How do you know it is true? We know the science is true because it is supported by observable, reproducible, predictive, and falsifiable methodology–the same methodology that leads to greater and greater success in reality. It’s the methodology that put on a man on the moon, created the internet, and allowed us an understanding of reality that made it possible that GPSs work. Why do I mention GPSs? Because they operate on principles of relativity, which is conclusive evidence that your weird notions of absolute space and absolute time in a universe where matter is not directly related to space-time are wrong. If GPSs work, your idea of matter being created ex nihilo is wrong. GPSs do work, therefore you are wrong. If you are right, you have to demonstrate how GPSs don’t work, satellite tv doesn’t work, communications satellites don’t work, etc., and you have to do this in such a way as to explain how scientists have used some other principle to fake these results over many years while, for some reason, pretending relativity was the actual answer. (When, at any point, a scientist could step forward and win a Nobel Prize by demonstrating this other principle in contrast to relativity.)

    Solomon: How could you guess the “process” is finished when God is just starting to record what things or events he’s going to laid out no matter if there is something or nothing beside God.

    Me: You’ve not demonstrated that the god notion is necessary yet, much less that it exists. It would be more helpful if you had direct evidence, rather than trying to make logical arguments that don’t work. The evidence of actual existence around us all indicates the god idea is not necessary. Indeed, all matter and energy in the universe (positive energy) balances with all gravity in the universe (negative energy), which means that the entire universe as we observe it is a balanced equation that equals zero. What does that mean? It means it was not created. If it WERE created, the equation could not equal zero because it would need some energy to “get started”. But all observations suggest there is no extra matter or energy, and that the universe is a result of a quantum fluctuation–exactly as was predicted BEFORE the observations had been made. Science. Gotta love it.

    Solomon: Oh my…Oh my…Why is it so difficult for you to understand my explanation.The record is only the planned things or events that God have laid out in the master record(the zircon). From that blueprint the actual events or other creations took place according to what is written in the record. Is that crystal clear?

    Me: That is not an explanation. Why? Because an explanation requires explanatory power. That has no more explanatory power than if I said a pantheon of SuperGods created all of existence by collaborating creatively. How do we find out if your zircon is correct, or my SuperGods are correct? We can’t, because they are unfalsifiable nonsense that has NO MEANS TO BE KNOWN, which means you are talking out of a lower orifice.

    Solomon: I have provide several tests for Gods claims(not mine) but you are too stubborn to accept it!

    Me: I only read half the thread, but it sounds like you don’t know what a test is. Can you explain falsifiability to demonstrate you DO know what a test is?

    Solomon: Do you want me to repeat or elaborate on it? Well for truth sake I have no problem.

    Me: Yes. Please eleborate.

    Solomon: A simple test for God’s existence is the revelation or claim by God himself of his existence.

    Me: How do we tell the difference between a claim by god himself, and claim by people who claim god made the claim? If we can’t tell the difference, then this isn’t a test.

    Solomon: This is proved by the creation concept laid out and claimed by God.If you think all the creations exist by itself or by your “god” NATURE, think again carefully.

    Me: No, you think again carefully. All observations indicate no god is needed. That’s not just YOUR god, but all of them. Not one of them is needed to explain the world around us. If you think it IS needed, it is up to you to provide the direct evidence.

    Solomon: Lets take a simple(to me its not simple at all) creation, a housefly for example.How many billions of process,complicated mathematical calculations,aviation technology, chemical reactions and many other processes involved.And how do you account for the fly able to airborne without any knowledge on flights?

    Me: Evolution by natural selection explains it all. You are aware that natural principles are always involved, right? When I drop a ball, the ball has no knowledge of gravity. You seem to think that intelligence is magic. Intelligence is not magic, it is the ability to recognize principles in the natural world to an extent that makes you successful in manipulating things in your reality. That is all. If knowledge, or intelligence, were magic, we wouldn’t need schools.

    Solomon: Does it knock your heart that all these creations need a one most powerful, most intelligent “being” to think, design and subsequently build it?

    Me: Name for me a complex thing that isn’t made of simpler things. You can’t. Why? Because THAT IS WHAT COMPLEX MEANS! If something is complex, it is simply a combination of SIMPLER things! There is no such thing as something “complex” in objective reality–”complex” is only relative to a mind that has a difficult time understanding. Complexity is not something found in reality, it is not magic, and it ONLY comes from simpler principles. And guess what? That is exactly how evolution by natural selection works in regard to things you think are complex (like the fly), but that isn’t even necessary. If simplicity leads to more survival, then organisms become simpler–as the fish who lost their eyes in the darkness of the deep ocean did.

  87. 87
    Jacob

    I am not jacobfromlost, to answer your question, s0l0m0n. Now my question is: who created the creator? Surely he is complex. Surely complex things need to be intelligently designed (according to you at least). So tell me: who designed the designer?

    I suppose then you’ll tell me that he existed eternally and is uncreated. If he wasn’t created but existed eternally, then why can’t I just say the universe was eternal and uncreated?

    It’s called special pleading, either some things are not created (which can include the universe), or all things are created and designed and such, including your God, and whoever created that creator, etc. And by the way, there is only existence and nonexistence. There is no other form of existence than existence. That’s another special pleading argument you made.

    Now let’s see, you also say “God claims” in several places. Where does God claim anything? In your holy book? Why should I believe that holy book has completely accurate information on what your God claims? Because you say so? Please learn about the scientific method, you have to question every source of information you have, and you have to only use verifiable and objective information to make an accurate determination about what is true and what isn’t. Look at a science paper sometime, look at how information is used, papers have to cite where their information comes from, and editors verify that they interpret their sources accurately. If there’s a problem, the paper has to be changed in some way. And new experiments and information are verified by replicating the conditions of the experiment where that new information came from. If it isn’t replicated, then you have to go back to the drawing board. This is admissible evidence, I can’t just assume your holy book (or any other) is true.

  88. 88
    s0l0m0n

    Due to shortage of time I would like a brief sum up of all the rants after my comments.

    After reading all the rubbish I would like you all to ponder a simple note.

    If you can’t accept the complexity of creations is started by one powerful intelligent being surely you would not be sane enough to accept that the chair that you have been sitting all this while is build by a furniture craftsman.

    The rest of your rants will be dealth later, God willing.

  89. 89
    LykeX

    If you can’t accept the complexity of creations is started by one powerful intelligent being surely you would not be sane enough to accept that the chair that you have been sitting all this while is build by a furniture craftsman.

    The universe is not a chair.

    This is why I don’t like your equivocation on the word “creation”.
    Building a chair and creating a universe are, to put it mildly, different things. Evidence for one is not evidence for the other.

    If this is truly the basis of your position, then you have no basis. It’s nothing but an argument from ignorance.

    1. 89.1
      s0l0m0n

      Not so….

      You all purposely put aside REASONING. That’s it. Reasoning that will put all your beliefs down the DRAIN! All of you will see (((((HELL)))) and that’s all you will see.

      1. Jacob

        Ahhhhh, incoherence, the best religious argument that ever was!

      2. LykeX

        “Wow, therefore god” is not reasoning.

  90. 90
    Jacob

    If you can’t accept the complexity of creations is started by one powerful intelligent being surely you would not be sane enough to accept that the chair that you have been sitting all this while is build by a furniture craftsman.

    Ok sure, if I assume there’s a designer, then who designed the designer? An even bigger designer? If he’s not designed and not created, then some things aren’t created and designed, which means I can say the universe (or rather, the singularity that precluded the universe in its current state) isn’t designed and created, IT SIMPLY IS.

    1. 90.1
      s0l0m0n

      Even an APE could’nt accept the ‘IT SIMPLY IS’ irresponsible blatant LIE!(((HELL)))) is a JUST place for LIARS!

      1. Jacob

        ok, then who created your God? He doesn’t “just exist”. He had to be created. Who created him?

  91. 91
    LykeX

    Even an APE could’nt accept the ‘IT SIMPLY IS’ irresponsible blatant LIE!

    But isn’t that what you’re saying about your god? He has no creator, right? So, he “simply is”, right?

    1. 91.1
      s0l0m0n

      Reasoning can’t accept your just “simply right” Words(only words)and reasoning too would readily accepts there must be ONE above all others.

  92. 92
    s0l0m0n

    {The universe is not a chair.
    This is why I don’t like your equivocation on the word “creation”.
    Building a chair and creating a universe are, to put it mildly, different things}

    Building a chair or the Universe is one same thing=CREATION.
    The difference that you fail to sense is that ‘Some are done by hands and some are not.’Remember…?

    1. 92.1
      jacobfromlost

      “Building a chair or the Universe is one same thing=CREATION.
      The difference that you fail to sense is that ‘Some are done by hands and some are not.’Remember…?”

      In order for there to be creation in the sense you NEED to claim anything is ever created, you have to first demonstrate a state of abject nothingness ever (or CAN) exist.

      To claim abject nothingness exists, or did exist, or was required to exist before existence existed…is idiotic nonsense. Therefore there WAS no “creation” of existence, as the state of abject nothingness from which existence is required to spring in order to be CALLED creation cannot logically, nor empirically, lead to the existence of anything…much less EXISTENCE ITSELF.

      It’s as if you claim your magic top hat is empty but refuse to show anyone what is in it, and then you pull a rabbit out and claim that is proof of magic. It’s not. It’s proof the rabbit was there all along–just like existence.

      1. s0l0m0n

        jacobfromlost,

        You are too ignorant regarding creation and too stubborn to accept it.Imagine one…yes only ONE simple creation like the bed bug for example.Let say billions and billions of years ago when the Universe is at the beginning of formation, everybody would agree there is no bed bug existed.Then how come this tiny bug appear as what it is now. Surely at some corner this kind of bug will take shape or form.That is the instant where the bed bug is created without hands.What’s so difficult for one to accept creation.You can call it magic or what but the reality is that bug has existed or created.NO one can REFUTE that!!

      2. jacobfromlost

        Solomon: You are too ignorant regarding creation and too stubborn to accept it.

        Me: I accept anything for which there is evidence that meets the minimum standards of evidence.

        Solomon: Imagine one…yes only ONE simple creation like the bed bug for example.

        Me: You can’t get to the creation of the bed bug (nasty little things that they are!) before you demonstrate that a creation of existence itself is necessary.

        Solomon: Let say billions and billions of years ago when the Universe is at the beginning of formation, everybody would agree there is no bed bug existed.

        Me: I don’t care about bed bugs. If god existed when he created existence, then he didn’t create existence! If god didn’t exist when he created existence, you are talking nonsense, as nonexistent things cannot create, lead to, or in any way develop into existent things.

        Solomon: Then how come this tiny bug appear as what it is now.

        Me: Evolution by natural selection. The bed bug isn’t REQUIRED to exist. They could all die tomorrow, or we could kill them all tomorrow, or they could have never existed at all.

        Solomon: Surely at some corner this kind of bug will take shape or form.

        Me: No, not “surely”. Evolution has no goals, and there is no “end” to it. Species can die off, as 99.9% of all of them have. In fact, all life on earth can die off. It isn’t required to exist by virtue of the observed properties of the universe.

        Solomon: That is the instant where the bed bug is created without hands.What’s so difficult for one to accept creation.

        Me: It wasn’t created.

        Solomon: You can call it magic or what but the reality is that bug has existed or created.NO one can REFUTE that!!

        Me: No one can refute what? What is your point? I think you missed my point. A god who creates existence can only create existence while being outside of existence. If something is outside of existence, it doesn’t exist. Things that don’t exist can’t create things.

        If god created existence while existing, THEN HE DIDN’T CREATE EXISTENCE since he existed a priori existence!

        I dare you to refute THAT, doofus.

  93. 93
    LykeX

    Building a chair or the Universe is one same thing

    Prove it. Make a universe.

    Oh, you can’t? But you can make a chair, right? So, clearly they’re not the same thing and evidence for one is not evidence for the other!
    By the hoary hosts of hoggoth, this really isn’t that difficult. In fact, it’s pretty much kindergarten level. Is this really what you think qualifies as reasoning?

    If I said that growing a tree and growing a human being were both instances of “growing” and as a result, since you can grow a tree from an acorn, you can grow a human from an acorn, would you think that was a reasonable conclusion?
    Yet, that’s what you’re doing! This is your exact argument: Conflate two different phenomena, provide evidence for one, claim you’ve demonstrated the other.

  94. 94
    s0l0m0n

    {Prove it. Make a universe.
    Oh, you can’t? But you can make a chair, right? So, clearly they’re not the same thing and evidence for one is not evidence for the other!}
    You are nagging like a childish blatant fool.Purposely twisting my doctrines to make it appear foolish and using it to back up your silly thoughts.
    I was demonstrating the concept of creation.The fact that they are the SAME are the concept that they both carry, not by the way they are build.You have made yourself so foolish with your cheap outdated tricks hoping to trap me.Now swallow back your tricks with humiliation.

    1. 94.1
      Jacob

      lol you look like a joke. Your whole post basically said “NUH UHH!!”

      So let’s see, if bed bugs are created, the universe was created, then of course God was created and designed by an intelligent agent.

  95. 95
    LykeX

    I was demonstrating the concept of creation.The fact that they are the SAME are the concept that they both carry, not by the way they are build

    But they’re different concepts. They’re entirely different phenomena. They’re fundamentally, inherently, absolutely, completely, totally, utterly and beyond all expression different. It’s demonstrated by the fact that one, transformation, is so common, it’s the basis of all life and all processes that occur anywhere at any time, while the other, creation ex nihilo, is so rare that we might easily question whether it has ever happened at all and you yourself are reduced to postulating a divine being to account for it.

    The fact that your personal belief system has them connected in some way doesn’t change the fact that they’re essentially different and that each one must be demonstrated separately.

    As an aside, you might also read up on the definition of “demonstrate”. Repeatedly asserting is not the same as demonstrating.

  96. 96
    s0l0m0n

    LykeX,

    Only uncreative minds and condemn souls will say “But they’re different concepts. They’re entirely different phenomena”
    You all, out of argument always try to create useless contradictions for the purpose of temporarily refuting the creation doctrines.

    I can prove that they are in the same concept or phenomena.First there was nothing(God is not a thing, so theres God) & God. Then God create something(matter for example).From matter God create something else like a planet if you prefer. Now matter is creation and planet is also creation.And now the CHAIR. Also a creation.A chair is God’s creation thru’ man.He provide man with brains & skills.He provide man with hands all just to make God’s creations a reality.It’s as simple as that.There’s no categorization such the ex nihilo concept created by foolish men.

    1. 96.1
      jacobfromlost

      Solomon: Only uncreative minds and condemn[ed] souls will say “But they’re different concepts. They’re entirely different phenomena”

      Me: I can be very creative with concepts–more creative than you, in fact. That doesn’t mean anything I say from my creative mind is true.

      Solomon: You all, out of argument always try to create useless contradictions for the purpose of temporarily refuting the creation doctrines.

      Me: Contradictions are not temorary. That’s a contradiction.

      Solomon: I can prove that they are in the same concept or phenomena.First there was nothing(God is not a thing, so theres God) & God. Then God create something(matter for example).

      Me: You’re saying “something” can only be something physical? You mean you can’t call a soul “something”? Spirits are not “something”? Heaven is not “something”? Evil is not “something”? Ok, if you say so. But I only asked you IF GOD EXISTS. If god created existence, he didn’t exist while he was doing it, hence he didn’t create existence. If god didn’t create existence, then trying to say god is necessary to create existence is wrong. God not only is NOT necessary to create existence, but existence clearly was NOT created, for if it WAS, then WHATEVER created it (god or not) had to EXIST while creating it! Hence, it didn’t create it.

      Solomon: From matter God create something else like a planet if you prefer. Now matter is creation and planet is also creation.And now the CHAIR. Also a creation.A chair is God’s creation thru’ man.He provide man with brains & skills.He provide man with hands all just to make God’s creations a reality.It’s as simple as that.There’s no categorization such the ex nihilo concept created by foolish men.

      Me: Then god is not a necessary Creator God. You’ve just negated the first cause argument. At best, you’ve just demonstrated this: “God did not exist while creating existence, and therefore God’s existence is not necessary now either.”

      A nonexistent god creating existence looks exactly like no god creating anything. Similarly, a nonexistent god looks exactly like the god we see around us now. Nonexistent.

  97. 97
    LykeX

    Listen very closely, now. What determines whether two concepts are the same of different is not whether you decide to call them by the same name. It is determined by their character.

    Creating matter out of nothing and shaping matter into something are different things. If you continue to deny that, the discussion is over. I refuse to carry on any further debate with a crazy person.

  98. 98
    s0l0m0n

    At last, I’ve WON. Whaa…ka…ka…ka…
    Truth always prevails.

  99. 99
    s0l0m0n

    jacobfromlost,

    (Me: Evolution by natural selection)

    Just a BULLSHIT arrangements of words.
    If evolution was true there must be first, a creation.How can an ape evolute into a man if there is no ape? There’s nothing to evolute.So evolution is just a word creation, in other words, evolution is a ((((HOAX)))).Evolution not in any circumstances could ever refute CREATION.

    1. 99.1
      jacobfromlost

      God either created existence or he didn’t. Those are the only two options.

      If god created existence, he existed while doing so. If he existed while created existence, he didn’t create existence. Therefore it is impossible that existence was created (by god, or anything else).

      Therefore possibility number one (that god created existence) is impossible, leaving the only other possibility.

      If god didn’t create existence, then there is no creation as everything is contingent on that which was not created. There is no need for a first cause, no infinite regress problem, no “something coming from nothing”.

      So the only logical possibility, that god doesn’t exist, is also the only possibility that makes sense with our observations. We don’t observe a god, while we do observe a universe that is equally balanced between matter/energy (positive energy), and gravity (negative energy), just as a quantum fluctuation event resulting in a Big Bang predicts…and which is disconfirming of not only Creator God theories, but Creator Anything theories.

  100. 100
    LykeX

    So evolution is just a word creation, in other words, evolution is a ((((HOAX)))).Evolution not in any circumstances could ever refute CREATION.

    Right. Because your definition of the word is so broad that no matter what happens or how it happens, it will still be “creation”.

    That’s not a strength of your position, btw. That’s a fatal flaw.

    At last, I’ve WON

    Really? You define victory as acting so crazy that people give up and walk away? I really hope you’re just a troll, because if this is how you actually think, you’re just about the most pathetic individual I’ve ever heard of.

    1. 100.1
      s0l0m0n

      LykeX,

      I don’t care.As long as I’ve delivered truth.

  101. 101
    s0l0m0n

    TESTING

  102. 102
    s0l0m0n

    jacobfromlost,

    Your previous rants are null & void.

    COZ

    God is not = existence
    God is not = CREATION
    God is = nothing
    God is God

    Whaaaa….ka..ka..ka..

    1. 102.1
      Jacob

      God is = nothing

      So God doesn’t exist? So you agree with us? Good then.

      1. s0l0m0n

        HE EXIST! But he’s not = to anything else STUPID!

        1. Jacob

          HE EXIST! But he’s not = to anything else STUPID!

          Calling people stupid, great argumentation style there. So, != to anything else means what exactly, and how does that have any bearing on his existence? I can say that unicorns!=anything else, but that doesn’t mean they exist. When you’re asked about existence, it’s either something exists or doesn’t exist. There’s no third option there. And alas, according to your logic, complex things need to be designed and created by an intelligent designer. Any God that actually exists has to be complex. Ergo, there must be an intelligent designer of God.

          1. s0l0m0n

            Jacob,

            God is not = to anything you have known or you have never know, existence for example.When God is = nothing, or not even = existence, then there can’t be any argument.

            [When you’re asked about existence, it’s either 'something' exists or doesn’t exist]

            -It’s true jacob, as I’ve mention earlier God is not a thing or ‘something’then your logic could not be apply.

            [Any God that actually exists has to be complex. Ergo, there must be an intelligent designer of God.]

            -As I’ve mention God is not = anything, in other words God could’nt be designed, that means there is no intelligent designer before GOD. My doctrines are the doctrines of truth Jacob. It can never be refuted.

            Whaaa..ka…ka…ka…

          2. LykeX

            So, we’re back to argumentum ad Nuh-uh.

          3. Jacob

            -As I’ve mention God is not = anything,

            Then God doesn’t exist. Wha ka ka ka. You can’t refute me.

  103. 103
    s0l0m0n

    Points to ponder

    If God can make a housefly fly then he could make horses fly too.

    1. 103.1
      Russell Glasser

      And of course, if God doesn’t exist then he can make neither.

      1. s0l0m0n

        What are you implying Kazim?

  104. 104
    natra

    I’ve been following the comments on thie blog and I find that solomon have been able to wipe off most of the atheists views.

    1. 104.1
      LykeX

      If you mean wipe off, as in disregard and utterly fail to address, then I agree completely.

  105. 105
    s0l0m0n

    Testing 2

  106. 106
    LykeX

    Testing 3

  107. 107
    LykeX

    For any moderator that comes along, I’m just checking how easy it is to do sock-puppeting on the same account. The multiple test-posts of solomon and the convenient supporting comment or nastra got me suspicious.

    1. 107.1
      Russell Glasser

      Oooh, good catch, LykeX! Since you pointed it out, I checked the IP address that “natra” posted from, and got 175.137.175.39.

      Then I checked the last couple of posts that s0l0m0n made, and… wouldn’t you know it? 175.137.175.39.

      Hey, Solomon. You’ve just been caught trying to give the false impression of outside support by posting from a fake account. Now instead of looking popular, you look silly. This is known on internet forums as “sock puppeting,” and it is a big violation of proper conduct. I think you’ve got an apology to make.

      1. s0l0m0n

        Do you think I don’t know anything regarding “sock puppeting,”
        Forget about the apology.
        That was only a TEST….

        Whaaa…ka…ka..ka…

        1. Jacob

          What was a test? Posting under another name and referring to yourself in the 3rd person in order to make it appear that you’re more credible than you really are? If that was “just a test” then you really should apologize. If you don’t, you should be banned for trolling.

        2. Russell Glasser

          I don’t know what test you were making, but you failed mine. You are hereby banned from this blog.

          1. s0l0m0n

            [Predictable insults/threats/whining redacted by moderator]

        3. Brian

          What was that? I couldn’t hear you over the sound of your backpedaling..

        4. LykeX

          I know it’s been redacted, but I can’t help laughing that he accuses us of lying and being deceptive right after he’s been caught sock-puppeting.

          This is pure comedy gold. It’s probably his most worthwhile contribution to the thread so far.

  108. 108
    s0l0m0n

    Jacob,
    You are an exact replica of an atheist who is out of argument.

    Whaaa…ka…ka…ka…
    Whaaa…ka…ka…ka…

    1. 108.1
      Jacob

      You know, if you actually demonstrated any truth, then this argument would go swimmingly for you. Except you just spin around in circles making claims and thinking that means you’re winning when really you look like a complete and utter fool.

  109. 109
    LykeX

    If God can make a housefly fly then he could make horses fly too.

    Anyone dare to try to refute this?

    Well, since you ask, it doesn’t actually follow. If being X can make a housefly fly, it doesn’t in any way imply that he could make a horse fly. There’s no way to draw that conclusion without something else in there.
    The only way is to smuggle in a hidden premise in your definition of god, but then that completely invalidates the argument as making any sort of real point, since its validity will depend entirely on a premise which you can’t substantiate.

    To sum up, either your premises are dubious or your argument is faulty.

    1. 109.1
      LykeX

      You asked for refutation. If you didn’t want it, you shouldn’t have asked. I’m not responsible for your faulty arguments.

  110. 110
    Jonathon Cowley

    “quoting scientific findings as if it were biblical doctrine ”

    No one could say anything that ass-backwards and mean it. Seriously; this must be some form of satire.

  111. 111
    thomasriley

    This is for atheists or even theist who want to show the evidence of evolution to creationoobs- feel free to copy this list -It is found and updated on facebook.com/creationistssuck

    Support and evidence for Evolution=

    The NCBI’s Protein Database (National Center for Biotechnology Information) Publications and experiments in Protein database confirming evolution (2,042,416) as of 13 January 2012 – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein/?term=evolution

    PubMed Database of biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books confirming evolution (306,930) published as of 13 January 2012 – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=evolution

    215 Carnivorous Species of Dinosaurs! -http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/carnivorousdinosaurs/Carnivorous_Dinosaurs.htm

    Top Research Universities Around the World

    Berkeley – http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
    Harvard University, US – http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/
    Princeton University, US – http://www.princeton.edu/eeb/gradinitiative/evolution/
    University College London – http://www.ucl.ac.uk/gee/
    Columbia University, New York- http://www.columbia.edu/cu/e3b/
    Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore US – http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/fae/
    Oxford, UK – http://evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk/Evolve/Research.html
    Cambridge, UK – http://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/zoostaff/akam/index.html
    Yale University, US – http://www.yale.edu/eeb/
    Stanford University, California – http://www.stanford.edu/group/ecoevo/
    Australian National University – http://biology.anu.edu.au/eeg/
    University of Tokyo, Japan – http://www.biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp/english/eb.htm
    Trinity College Dublin, Ireland – http://www.gen.tcd.ie/molevol/
    University of Geneva, Switzerland – http://genev.unige.ch/l
    Seoul National University, South Korea – http://www.behecolpiotrsangim.org/
    University of Hong Kong, PRC – http://evolution.hku.hk/
    Manchester, UK – http://www.ls.manchester.ac.uk/research/researchgroups/computationalandevolutionarybiology/
    École Normale Supérieure de Paris, France – http://www.biologie.ens.fr/eceem/spip.php?rubrique16
    UCLA, US – http://www.eeb.ucla.edu/
    Duke, US – http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/Biology/faculty/evolution.html
    University of Helsinki Finland- http://www.helsinki.fi/biosciences/ecologyandevolutionarybiology/research.htm

    Museums and Societies

    Smithsonian Museum, Washington DC- http://humanorigins.si.edu/
    American Museum of Natural History, New York with collections of more than 32 million specimens and artifacts – http://www.amnh.org/learn/evolution
    Paleontology Society – http://www.paleosoc.org/evolutioncomplete.htm
    American Institute of Biological Sciences – http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/
    Geological Society of America – http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position1.htm
    National History Museum, London – http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/evolution/
    Museum of Paleontology Michigan – http://www.paleontology.lsa.umich.edu/Resources/vertPaleo.html
    Peabody Museum, Yale – http://peabody.yale.edu/exhibits/hall-mammalian-evolution
    Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris – http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/foffice/tous/tous/guidePratique/lieuxVisiter/LieuxAVisiter/FLieuAVisiter.xsp?i=1&AE_ID=203&nav=liste&SITE_ID=10&idx=2&LIEU_ID=164&INFO_ID=1&MAN_ID=259
    Museum of Vertebrate Zoology Berkeley -http://mvz.berkeley.edu/Evol_Gen_Lab.html
    PBS – http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
    Human Genome Project – http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/benefits.shtml

    Prestigious Science Academies

    National Academy of Science – http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/
    Royal Society – http://royalsociety.org/human-evolution/
    Centre for Ecology and Evolution, London http://www.ceevol.co.uk/
    American Institute of Biological Sciences – http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/teaching_evolution.html

    Vital Information that confirms the theory

    How to shut up pesky creationists’ – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw
    The fusion of chromosomes in other great apes and humans http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
    Evolution and diversity of trilobites – http://www.trilobites.info/trends.htm
    Peer Reviewed Work Containing evolution? 301,000+ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=evolution
    How Information is added – http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=315525578470499
    Stanford’s Population Genetics page (mathematical evidence)- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/population-genetics/
    J Craig Venter Institute (DNA can be made from a jar of chemicals) http://blogs.jcvi.org/2011/03/nasa-and-jcvi-host-symposium-on-the-evolution-of-earth-and-life/
    Smithsonian Internship Research Presentations- http://www.mnh.si.edu/NHRE/archives.html
    From Single Cells to Multicellular Organisms NCBI Bookshelf- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28332/

    Support from Religious Scientists

    President of National Human Genome Project, President of National Institute of Health, Francis Collins: Scientist and Christian and his book on the evidence for evolution: “The Language of God” – http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/january/32.62.html
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921,00.html
    “I’m an evolutionary biologist and a Christian,” states Stanford professor Joan Roughgarden”-
    http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Christian-Faith-Reflections-Evolutionary/dp/1597260983
    Dr. Denis O. Lamoureux, Christian theologian, evolutionary biologist and dentist, professor of science and religion at St. Joseph’s College and his book: “I Love Jesus & I Accept Evolution” http://www.amazon.com/Love-Jesus-Accept-Evolution/dp/1556358865
    Ground breaking dinosaur paleontologist, educator, Christian preacher Dr. Robert T. Bakker – http://www.prehistoricplanet.com/features/index.php?id=26
    Evolution explained by Christian Dr. Robert J. Schneider. Who’s “Science and Faith” course was awarded a John Templeton Foundation Science and Religion Course Prize in 1997. – http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp
    “Nothing makes sense except” A phrase originating from Russian Orthodox Christian evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution
    (National Center for Science Education) Religious organizations accepting evolution, scientific organizations, etc – http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Voices_3e.pdf
    How many Christians/denominations accept scientific theory of evolution? – http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/rel_evol_sun.htm

    Want a PhD or Masters in evolutionary biology?

    144 Evolutionary Biology Graduate Programs – http://www.gradschools.com/search-programs/evolutionary-biology

  112. 112
    jacobfromlost

    solomon,

    Since you are so fond of tests, I prayed, and god told me your name is Dale and you are from Australia. Is this correct? Please verify so I know I’m talking to the right god.

    Sincerely,
    jacobfromlost

  1. 113
    Computer Hard Drive Disposal

    Computer Hard Drive Disposal…

    [...]So Many Claims, So Little (No) Support… | The Atheist Experience[...]…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>