If God is real, how would you know?

[paddoboy]

But that's your God, Paddoboy.

Not really Tiassa. The beauty of science is that it is in continual change and progress, and corrections of its own errors etc. That was shown with BICEP2, and shown with other rare scientific fraud and errors.
Let me say at this point, that I would be out of here and cease my arguments with Jan, [as I believe others would] if he could simply admit that his acceptance of God is entirely on faith, not evidence. I have nothing against that and would resepct him for it, just as I respected Teroko for his similar stance. Far better then lying and being generally dishonest about it, as Jan obviously does.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I’ve established it.

Sure you have, yet no one here would agree with you.

There doesn’t have to be a reason.

You may happily proceed without reason however I think reason must prevail, together with evidence, you have neither.

If you don’t think I’m right then make a rebuttal.

Er I have, on many occasions.

Why should we assume a universe can?

Why should we assume that it can't.

So how did the universe create mind, and consciousness?

Has it?

Support this notion,

Your posts are sufficient support.

We may as well say all definitions are meaningless.

Say what you like but let reality be your judge.

Can you briefly explain what the point of definitions are?

Yes but I won't.

Please prove me wrong.

That is your job ...one that you display an unparalleled skill.

I have no idea of “what other thing” you’re talking about.

Convenient ignorance.

Alex

 

[paddoboy]

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?

Point [1] Science/cosmology has described how the universe/space/time evolved from a hotter denser state from t+10-43 seconds.
point [2] We see evidence of those sorts of epochs in particle accelerators and colliders every day.
point [3] While science can not explain anything back further, it does have some reasonable specualtive scenarios, again based on data already known and experimental results in accelerators and colliders.
point[4] The same standards you are applying through your incredulity with regards to the universe, would also by necessity, be applied to the deity that you say created the universe...if you were honest that is.

 

[Write4U]

Because it's not evidence. Your hunch that God is real is not evidence; it is a hunch, no more real than a flat Earther who declares that the Earth is flat because it seems like that to him.

One such recognized non-existing 'conjured' god is a Tulpa.

Tulpa is a concept in mysticism and the paranormal of a being or object which is created through spiritual or mental powers.[1] It was adapted by 20th-century theosophists from Tibetan sprul-pa (Tibetan: སྤྲུལ་པ་, Wylie: sprulpa) which means "emanation" or "manifestation".[2] Modern practitioners use the term to refer to a type of willed imaginary friend which practitioners consider to be sentient and relatively autonomous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa

 

[paddoboy]

If, a big IF, if he was real, I would also ask him to give me a longa donga! and a longa use by date.

 

[arfa brane]

I just realised what the problem is.

To argue that gods don't exist (so there is no God with a capital g), you have to say that a god is something after all. God doesn't exist because God is a mythical being, like a unicorn, for instance. It doesn't seem to be able to exit a kind of conceptual loop, somehow.

The headline then reads: Mythical Being confirms the non-existence of God

 

[billvon]

But are they "necessary"?

Not at all. Any of the possibilities may be true.

It's not a matter of possibility, it's a matter of probability. And we have abundant chemical evidence to support the notion that life was an inevitability.

Right. God is not necessary to explain life.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sure you have, yet no one here would agree with you.

Yes you do, you’re just afraid to admit it.

You may happily proceed without reason however I think reason must prevail, together with evidence, you have neither.

You have yet to e plain how you would know what was evidence of God, should it be presented to you. I don’t think you can know, as long as you remain in denial and rejection.

Er I have, on many occasions.

No you haven’t.
The rest of your post isn’t worth bothering with.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Point [1] Science/cosmology has described how the universe/space/time evolved from a hotter denser state from t+10-43 seconds.

So what?

point [2] We see evidence of those sorts of epochs in particle accelerators and colliders every day.

Do you see it everyday?

point [3] While science can not explain anything back further, it does have some reasonable specualtive scenarios, again based on data already known and experimental results in accelerators and colliders.

Well, let’s see them, and see if we can wrap this thing up.

point[4] The same standards you are applying through your incredulity with regards to the universe, would also by necessity, be applied to the deity that you say created the universe...if you were honest that is.

Again, and in conjunction with the op...
How would you know?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Actually near everything you say...your claims that we have evidence for god when we don't...

I doubt you are capable of knowing that, because you are lead around by your worldview, which requires you to lie to yourself, and accept ideas like things can pop into existence Willy-billy.

If you want to help me understand, then offer me some evidence...

I have done, but you don’t want to learn anything. You keep running away.

Let me rephrase, since again you have redefined.Man invented the myth that you call god/s: God/s did not invent man or the universe.

You can’t know that.

 

[paddoboy]

So what?

So you are a charlatan as well as dishonest.

Do you see it everyday?

Do you see the Sydney Opera House everyday?
What an inane stupid comment, one that you could only expect from a charlatan and a liar.

Well, let’s see them, and see if we can wrap this thing up.

That has been supplied many times, and there is also a thread on it in the sciences, if you
have any science to add.

Again, and in conjunction with the op...
How would you know?

Already been told, two or three times.

 

[paddoboy]

I doubt you are capable of knowing that, because you are lead around by your worldview, which requires you to lie to yourself, and accept ideas like things can pop into existence Willy-billy.

But your sky daddy is able to pop into existence willy nilly?
What a fraud you are!

I have done, but you don’t want to learn anything. You keep running away.

No you havn't. All you have done, is misinterpret, change definitions, lie and be totally dishonest. And other then river [who is banned from the sciences] the forum agrees on that.

You can’t know that.

While there is no evidence, sure, I certainly can know that.
It's a known evidenced fact...that man invented god/s: God/s did not invent man.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

You have yet to e plain how you would know what was evidence of God, should it be presented to you.

Well given there is none to date that I need consider it is not worth speculating and you have overlooked the post I made presenting what I expect.

Anyways Jan you are lucky that I am busy so you may escape a crushing today...oh wait Paddo and C will probably give you one each.

Tell me do you have any hobbies besides god? Music? Stamp collecting? Cage fighting? Perhaps we could discuss something real..now wouldn't that be refreshing.

Must Go nice to see you are not letting reality destroy youry myths.



Alex

 

[Neddy Bate]

Has anyone tried to decode this algorithm? I have just started, but think it is something like this:

1. Start with a definition of god that is vague enough that everything in existence would have to be proof of it.

2. All people who do not automatically believe in this god, (such as atheists), are therefore in denial, because of how obvious everything in existence is.

3. Such people are actually incapable of not being in denial, due to their testing positive for #2 above, (just an attempted insult to throw in whenever the algorithm is cornered).

4. Question science just to troll them.

5. Never answer questions without asking more questions than asked.

6....

???

Of course it's not worth spending time to decode, but then it is also not worth the time to respond. But folks do have plenty of spare time on their hands...

 

[arfa brane]

A general observation about any arguments or discussions about God.

Who is going to referee the debate, to decide the winner?

 

[paddoboy]

A general observation about any arguments or discussions about God.

Who is going to referee the debate, to decide the winner?

There is no winning, and there does not need to be a winner against down and out trolling.
The science and the scientific method, find god/s, the supernatural in general, and the paranormal to simply be unscientific concepts, and have made the need for such claims to be superfluous.
That's the story, and that won't change.
That includes of course the creationists denial of Darwinism and the theory of evolution, which started this failed shemozzle of a crusade against science.
Science won't change or be invalidated by some fool on a science forum.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Who is going to referee the debate, to decide the winner?

An impartial atheist.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But folks do have plenty of spare time on their hands...

That's the key.

I find there are times where I have little to do...well it's more of a case that I am resting my crook legs...and I come here to get my science news but troll master drops an irresistible lure and I get to have a rant. I know there is no hope of converting Jan in fact if I thought I could be responsible for changing his/her views I would not participate. You wonder how folk with the need for religion would cope with reality..probably not well I expect.

I see it much like going to the pub getting a bit of a glow and talking rubbish about things of no importance and you don't have to be too careful plus you can have a few laughs at someone's expense.

Jan makes me laugh so often and is now so predictable I find the game entertaining.

I like to feed Jans need to chat god as I feel he/she notwithstanding the flaws is a human and I can help cheer hi/her up, whilst I get to take my mind off my legs pain...that's what I am doing now resting and waiting for more resin to go off before the next step..but probably won't get much more done today.

I would rather have a discussion about cosmology or astronomy but that is what I don't have time for because if I am going to discuss something important I usually re read the subject matter, make sure I am up to date etc..but so does everyone else so there is little to discuss.

Probably what we all should do is say to Jan..Yes we agree there is a God and a soul and intelligent design rules so now what do we discuss.

So yes time on my hands..plus dirt from a good days work.

Alex

 

[Jan Ardena]

Who is going to referee the debate, to decide the winner?

It would have to be someone like wegs, who doesn’t bang on any group.
Atheists are programmed to follow their worldview, then become unhinged when they realise everything they’ve been defending is a lie.
Theists, in general, are a little too laid back, allowing the atheists to get away with their repetitive nonsense.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

So what?

Do you see it everyday?

Well, let’s see them, and see if we can wrap this thing up.

Again, and in conjunction with the op...
How would you know?

Wow Jan you sure showed Paddo you are no fool, your answers were just so profound and wise I would even say deep I but most men ers will print out your wise reply and frame it to hang in pride of place...

Now you should show this to your mates they will think you are a champion of sensible discussion.

I love the way you show science is of no co sequence I think when your wisdom becomes widely recognised universities will be dropping science courses particularly evolution and biology and bringing in ID... any day now, any day now.

Maybe you should go for a career in law or politics where your impeccable ability to argue can be financially rewarding...you have to do something to get so e cash to balance out all the cult has conned you out of.

I can see you in court embarrassing the judge with your superior knowledge and direct manner and of course unparalleled honesty.

Your talents are wasted here no doubt.

Seriously thanks for the entertainment I know you are having fun and are only doing this to entertain and bring scorn on creationists and I say you are doing a wonderful job.

Alex