Bullshit. If god isn't real, how can he have a nature? [Ignoramus comes to mind] Wrong, wrong, wrong.....Atheists along with me and Alex, basically and initially claim we have no evidence for any god/s and science has simply made such a myth as superfluous. If you chose to call that nothing, that's OK...same meaning. Whereas, the scientific version of nothing has been speculated to be in reality, the quantum foam, and that makes some sense, being that the quantum foam is as close to what is generally defined as nothing, as one can get. No, you are presenting what you always present. Misinterpetations, redefining of words, and lies, to support what there is no evidence for.
I suggest you read the Darwinism and theory of evolution thread, and the evidence that they are fact, and if you like, offer some science...if at all you have any science to show.
It's in the science section Jan. This is the fringe religious section. Obviously the reality is that you are simply unable to properly scientifically debunk the facts of Darwinism and evolution. That's OK, though...I accept that fact also.
There’s no need. It is a political struggle. Meanwhile science is advancing. You only pretend accept science because you think it supports your atheist position. You’re too ignorant, and dogmatic, to flow with science.
As far as you’re concerned God is nothing. So you’re correct from your POV. For you and Alex, that’s just talk. You have accepted that God is nothing, and as such you have relieved yourself of comprehension by way of your worldview. There is nothing more you can add. You choose to call it nothing. But if it is the origin of everything, then it is God. I thought as much, it is above your pay grade. That’s why I left you the Nebraska man joke. To keep you occupied.
Sorry I was trying to explore along the lines of the title of the op but of course you are right it's all about God's nature silly me. No however I can see where you may have picked up that misunderstanding if indeed you refer to my attempt to give credibility to the Bible by substituting a non entity I would call nature and placing and up-to-date interpretation upon the Bible to some how make it fit reality. And seeing the stories as stories that tell another story like the flood actually describing mass extinctions and survival of the fittest and in effect supporting the Theory of Evolution , which on my interpretation it does...like the reference to god making Adam is how nature formed life from the elements of the Earth and not some form of mythical intellect...it is the only way to make it fit the science..you do want the Bible to fit the science don't you? Well there's your problem..you have just rushed too far ahead in this game...You have made a claim in effect that god is real, and missed the part of establishing that god is real and no doubt because you are excited think we can move past that little part where you establish that God exists...etc And look I invited you to tell me why you see god as real and you avoided the question its like you are hanging out for another crushing...I will give you another chance..How do you know god is real? And I am sure it's a very nice argument but one thing at a time and that first thing is for you to answer my question ...now if you don't I swear you will get a crushing like you have never had before. You don't want to say god is real because you have learnt your lesson and decided to stop Lieing..is that it? Now can you answer the question? Alex
There's your problem in an eternal universe the is no origin as you imagine...no creator...thank goodness I was able to help you on that one. Alex
Not really...Its the other thread closed because of your trolling and lies, and the couple of warnings you were given. I leave the pretentiousness to yourself Jan...you do a far better job at that stuff. And of course I don't label myself as anything, including atheist...just a student of science, common sense and the scientific method...you know, that without which, you would still be swinging in the trees with your cousins. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's nice to have your input river but I think you don't understand what Paddo means really...think more about it and I am sure you will work out Paddo is not suggesting the an unevidenced and presumably mythical god is a beast he is merely saying that there is no evidence...now of course some gods were beasts..I was reading today how some folk worshipped a particular god and they thought he was a bull. Heck there are so many. Anyways it's great to see you help Jan ... He is a little directionless ..please guide him/her to the truth. Also can you input on the op? Alex
He knows what I mean Alex, as any fool would...trolling, trolling, trolling is what river does. Let me guess...god is a rock! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The op was a question for atheists, so if you want “explore along the lines of op”, answer the question. Like I said, you can’t not actually believe in God. You can only deny and reject God. Instead of giving God the credit, you give credit to the ingredients. How did that cake get here? It was formed by its ingredients. God is defined as the transcendental origin of everything. Everything is here, so unless you have an explanation of how everything got here. The definition stands. There is only one thing. What other thing are talking about. Now stop trying to shift the emphasis of the opening post. What would you accept as evidence of God, that cannot be explained away by nature? Seeing as you’re about the evidence.
Nup, a question for anyone. That's nonsense, and typical creationist crap. We have no evidence for any god/s or any of his ingredients. Nonsense. That's only the definition of fanatical creationists. I gave a far more realistic one based on reality and evidence...or the lack thereof. And no, god/s is not the explanation how everything got here... science has answered that back to t+10-43 seconds and in the process made any thought or necessity of any mythical god superfluous. The obvious honest question to the fanatical creationists, is how did god/s get here. In essencce, man invented god: God didn't invent man. Your dishonesty and other questionable qualities? I've already given examples of that.
It is a question for anyone, but it was specifically aimed at atheists. What part doesn’t make sense to you? Maybe I can help you to make sense of it. Of course we do. You’re simply in a state of denial and rejection. God doesn’t have to “get here”. Man can only use what he knows, and the resources at hand, to invent stuff. He cannot go outside of that. So man could not have invented a transcendent being. Troll! I wasn’t asking you. It’s not all about you Paddo.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There was no qualification to that effect. You answer my question I have already given an answer. There is no need to deny a proposition that has not been established. No you show there is evidence for your mythical god and then we can consider the aspect of denial. Think about it Jan denial is a he refusal to accept something that has been established..you know...climate change denial...you see climate change has been established refusal to accept it is denial...god has not been established so there is no point in using the word deny...simply inappropriate. You have yet to establish a god , and out of the thousands to chose from, which god. You don't get it there is nothing established to give credit...you just can not understand until you support your claim you do not get to assume a damn thing. Now look if we were dealing with a cake we could look at it, we could touch it, we could eat it, all can see the cake, it's existence is comfortably established......a cake is evidenced in our seeing it, our touching it, or our eating it..further a cake is rather ordinary and so not much is needed to establish that it exists..now your god..what do we have in evidence? Have you seen God, touched god, etc.....no...well what do you think God exists? You have been told by reading a book...but this book is very wrong about many things so we really can't use it as evidence. This claim a out a god is not only lacking your support via evidence but it seems just no one has any evidence... All we have is folk saying they believe but nothing in support. It is not the same as regarding a cake as real. Ingredients? Are you suggesting god has ingredients? What are they? Can we at least look at those? You can't make up the definition without examining the thing you wish to describe or if you wish to define something unestablished know that defining it does not make it real... What is the difference between defining a unicorn and defining god...there is no difference and we don't have unicorns or god. Now I keep telling you the universe is clearly eternal and there is no need to create a damn thing. What is so difficult to grasp? Alternatively if there was a point of creation why jump to the unsupported conclusion that God created it..why not look for a different mechanism ... The fact is you don't know yet you enjoy something that is totally made up ... The definition is meaningless and it does not stand simply because you demand it..you don't present a definition and it just stands..no it must be credible and you lack and support of your claim leaving your claim without credibility. Huffing and puffing won't change a definition that you like into a reality. And you wonder why folk don't take a discussion with you seriously. Read what I have laid out it's all there...that's why I wrote it down. Ignore it and I will not forget your action. I have given my answer. Alex
I’ve established it. You have yet to rebutt it. You deny it. You have no good reason to deny what I have established, unless you can show it. No. “Denial” is simply an act of denying something. There doesn’t have to be a reason. Which you are clearly demonstrating. I’ve supported it. If you don’t think I’m right then make a rebuttal. If we look at nature, we can all see it, touch it, smell it, eat it, etc. What’s your point? We know the cake didn’t make itself? or bring itself into existence. Why should we assume a universe can? Then the universe is God, as far as your concerned. So how did the universe create mind, and consciousness? Does the universe have a mind. Is the universe consciously aware? That is the definition of God. That definition is attributed to no one or no thing else. Support this notion, otherwise you’re flapping. We may as well say all definitions are meaningless. I wonder how far we’d get with that. Can you briefly explain what the point of definitions are? Because they are scared of answering my questions, honestly. Just like you are. Please prove me wrong. I have no idea of “what other thing” you’re talking about. Chances are you don’t either.
