Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

[Zzyzx]

.
From another thread

I present undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator.

I await the evidence.

Question for debate: Is the evidence undeniable and scientific (and compelling / convincing) or is it just more of the same stuff that has been presented ad nausea?

[Starman]

[Replying to post 378 by JoeyKnothead]

The argument from incredulity is "Who made God?"

Clearly it is a question utterly beyond the purview of mortal humans ever to answer. Nevertheless atheists relentlessly continue to pose this argument from incredulity.

Atheists condemn God as wicked, evil, and stupid for the various things atheists claim should have been and continue to be done differently.

Infinite hubris is a startling characteristic of atheists.

"If anyone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor Lennox

Just so.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 380:

First, I 'pologize for getting your name wrong. I happend to be listening to "Starrider" by Foreigner when I wrote that. It wasn't deliberate or nefarious at all, and I 'preciate your not making a fuss about it...

The argument from incredulity is "Who made God?"

Such a condition still doesn't remove your own.

Clearly it is a question utterly beyond the purview of mortal humans ever to answer.

So too, I contend, trying to declare the properties of that which can't be shown to exist is beyond our purview.

Nevertheless atheists relentlessly continue to pose this argument from incredulity.

As relates to "Who made God", where folks declare "The universe must have had a 'cause, only good ol' God didn't", that's a pleading especialle.

Atheists condemn God as wicked, evil, and stupid for the various things atheists claim should have been and continue to be done differently.

Such should be expected when folks propose a God that's wicked, evil and stupid.

Infinite hubris is a startling characteristic of atheists.

Then we must conclude it's an innate attribute of theists.

"If anyone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor Lennox
...

"If anyone could show God exists, there'd be a lot less atheists." - JoeyKnothead

[Zzyzx]

.

Rational thinking does NOT equate language and grammar skills with ability to understand complex topics, including scientific theories.

Nor did I say it DID. I simply stated that grammar is the simpler skill. Check for rocks.

Notice that my statement did not identify anyone personally. If the shoe fits . . . . or try on the shoe and "explain" or complain.

What, exactly, is there to prove about "I don't believe your god tales"?

Atheists demand proof.

Blanket statements are often in error (and are discouraged in these debates).

SOME Atheists demand proof. Some do not. Accuracy and realism are advantageous in debate.

I don't believe your godlessness is rational. Prove it is.

Have you hit the common rock of assuming that I am an atheist? My theological position is no secret. As far as I am concerned ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" may exist " including your (generic term) favorite. I await convincing evidence upon which to make a sound, rational, intelligent decision which, if any, are real.

In fact, most Theists DISBELIEVE in far more "gods" than I do " when they claim that only their favorite is real and the rest are false.

Prove there is no God.

Rock: I make no such claim. However, many make a claim that their favorite "god" does exist " which they are expected to substantiate with something other than stories in religion promotional literature.

Many Theists who pass through here seem to have difficulty understanding that absence of belief in "gods" does not require that alternatives to theological mythology be provided.

Atheists have difficulty understanding that absence of belief in unicorns, Easter bunnies, and other imaginary creatures does not invoke worldwide groups and clubs obsessed on denouncing that which they do not believe.

Many Atheists and others understand that worldwide clubs promoting belief in invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities is no assurance that such things are anything more than products of human imagination (as are apparently unicorns, Easter bunnies, fairies, pixies, leprechauns and gods).

Correction: The default position of Atheism is "I do not believe god tales" " period " full stop.

Rocks ahead. Correction: The default position of atheism is relentless antagonism, political, social, personal, vulgar, profane, and in-your-face antagonism of the most judgmental and condescending kind.

That is a commonly expressed theistic belief " perhaps based upon listening to sermons or reading creationist / fundamentalist websites.

Have you researched enough of what "Atheists" actually maintain to understand that there is NO unifying doctrine -- and that individual positions vary greatly?

Of course, Theists who exhibit an "in your face" attitude here often "have their head handed to them" by people they irritate or offend. I, personally, use a modification of the Ethic of Reciprocity (often claimed as copyright by Christians as the Golden Rule). I treat others at least as well as they treat me. Those who display anger, hate, etc receive the same in return (within Forum Rules and Guidelines of course).

Those who attempt to "slay the infidel" with wild swings of their broadsword of righteous indignation and delusion of superiority often do not fare well against a rapier.

If ANY posts exhibit "relentless antagonism, political, social, personal, vulgar, profane, and in-your-face antagonism of the most judgmental and condescending kind" be sure to report such infractions of Forum Rules and Guidelines (using the exclamation point symbol upper right on each post).

Mr. Dawkins does not debate here to the best of my knowledge. Members debate here.

I did not say he does debate here. You may contact him, however. I contacted Atkins and Lennox recently and years ago, Dawkins.

We debate those who ARE here.

I have contacted divinity schools inviting faculty and students to debate here " in an effort to find capable and credible theistic debaters. The response was zero. Perhaps such well educated Theists hesitate to debate on a "level playing field" where their theological position and their promotional literature are not given a handicap of preferential treatment.

Opinion noted and assigned appropriate value in debate " ZERO.

Response noted, with identical value in debate.

Thank you. If or when you are ready we can debate the issues raised in the OP "undeniable scientific evidence of the creator." Arian made that claim but seems unable to provide any such thing. Perhaps you can help him.

Correction: SOME "Atheists" (common Theist term for anyone who does not worship "gods") evoke other fictional characters. Theists often refer to characters that they CLAIM are not fictional " but cannot seem to substantiate their claims (with anything more than unverifiable ancient tales, testimonials, emotion, and argumentum ad populum).

Repeating a contention endlessly does not make it so. Jesus of Nazareth was not remotely fictional.

A wandering rabbi named Jesus may well have existed 2000 years ago. However, there are no contemporary records or accounts that indicate he did. No one aside from bible writers decades or generations later seems to have noticed.

Since the origin of the universe and the beginning of life are subjects of speculation (scientific or theological or other), the most reasonable position in the absence of compelling information is "I don't know how either originate."

Many CLAIM knowledge of "creation" by one of the thousands of proposed invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities (often called "gods"). However, when asked for substantiation they have nothing more to offer than unverifiable ancient tales that CLAIM knowledge, testimonials, personal emotional experiences, conjectures " and condemnation of competing guesses.

Books have been written in various disciplines, including history and archaeology, verifying many Biblical truths.

Have studies or books of history and archeology verified ANY of the claimed "miracles", or the claimed "resurrection", or the "virgin birth" " or anything else that would indicate that Jesus was something other than a human rabbi?

Yes, some of the place names, a few individuals and some events can be verified. That does NOT indicate that the stories themselves are true. Many individuals, places and events from Gone with the Wind can be shown to have existed or occurred. Does that make the story true?

That atheists such as you

Head first into a rock (repeatedly). It does not require great reading comprehension skill to identify correctly my theological position by reading my signature, user groups, and often repeated statements.

reject anything and everything not in keeping with your personal anti-religious beliefs

I have no "anti-religious beliefs" " but repeatedly and clearly state that ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" MAY be real and the religions that worship (or love, or fear) them MAY be valid " awaiting evidence upon which to make a reasoned decision.

does not make you either right nor rational nor intellectual.

I make no claim to be right or intellectual. I present ideas in debate for readers to consider. If any find they have merit, so be it. I'm not selling anything " and not pretending to possess knowledge that I do not possess. (Which seems to irritate many Theists).

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 378 by JoeyKnothead]

The argument from incredulity is "Who made God?"

Clearly it is a question utterly beyond the purview of mortal humans ever to answer. Nevertheless atheists relentlessly continue to pose this argument from incredulity.

Atheists condemn God as wicked, evil, and stupid for the various things atheists claim should have been and continue to be done differently.

Infinite hubris is a startling characteristic of atheists.

"If anyone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He." - Professor Lennox

Just so.

When a theist uses a premise that "everything has a cause" or "everything is desinged" to make their argument for God, they're cheating if they exempt God from being subject to their own premise.

"Who made God?" is, when properly employed, a check on whether the theist applies their premises universally or whether they are special pleading.

Usually the theist is special pleading. Sometimes they aren't and the non-theist doesn't fully understand the theist's argument and is unwittingly attacking a strawman.

Never in my knowledge has "Who made God?" ever been used as an argument from incredulity.

[arian]

Opinion noted and assigned appropriate value in debate " ZERO.

Response noted, with identical value in debate.

Thank you. If or when you are ready we can debate the issues raised in the OP "undeniable scientific evidence of the creator." Arian made that claim but seems unable to provide any such thing. Perhaps you can help him.

Hello Z, and welcome to the Forum Starman!

I believe I have answered your request in this OP Z, and have given enough various examples to justify my claim both from scientific, philosophical, historical, non-religious Biblical, including comparisons to other first-cause ideologies, other claimed creators or first causers, and look where it ended up, with me diagnosed with Bi-Polar disorder from medications which I may or may not be taking.

I don't need help in defining what I know, but I sure could use help in defending positions that I have made perfectly clear, and are being mocked.

You mentioned the Golden Rule, .. but I thought it was "Do unto others as you would have them do to you", .. not "eye for an eye" as you seem to use it!?

Anyways, the OP states; "Undeniable And Scientific Evidence of THE Creator" right?

If someone was standing on the RR-track with an oncoming train straight towards that person, and there were 100 onlookers screaming: "Get off the tracks or the train will hit you!" That person could
1. refuse to get off the track for a million reasons, one is that he has every right to be on the track. This would make the 100 concerned people look foolish for yelling and screaming at him to stop doing something he has every right to do; stand or walk on the RR-tracks (I have done it many, many times and found it refreshing, relaxing as I skipped from one Railroad tie to another, and was able to think for myself better)
2. Deny the undeniable that if he does keep standing there, the train WILL hit him.

Soooo.. we can scratch 'Undeniable' right off the claim. So we are left with: "Scientific evidence" right?

If the Big-bang theory is considered science, or a theory which today is built upon with such extent as justifying spending billions of dollars, and be taught in schools as if it was 'fact' (why else would the people who are facing cataclysmic droughts as the worlds ice-caps are melting which they say will cover the entire world with water and drown us all, .. another words facing drought AND global flooding at the same time) be willing to starve half the human population and willingly support with billions and even trillions of dollars some ideology unless they 'believed it with absolute certainty it was true? Obviously just as so many I talked to said; "The Big bang must be true, they say science proves it to be so, otherwise do you think they would spend so much money on enormous projects building on the theory if it wasn't!?"

So then we can also take away: "Scientific evidence" because the definition of science has been perverted, which now includes billions of year old unobserved stories by religious priests.

So what do we have left? Oh yea, .. "THE Creator"

I said we use our mind to create, to dream up concepts, design cars, spaceships etc. but I am bombarded with this new definition of scientific-facts that THEY KNOW the mind is the result of the brain, not some hocus-pocus supernatural spirit/ghost/spook separate from the brain, and no matter how detailed I explain it from different perspectives, my 'mind/spirit' who we are is brushed off and trampled on with generalized comments to the extent of diagnosing me with bipolar disorder or some other troubled mental illness.

So since the brain is 'believed' to be the result of an unplanned accident from nothing that happened exactly 13.75 billion years ago, the 'mind' that I have observed and speak of is not even close to the one these so called brilliant scientists that are working on pushing the human-ape to another step in evolution (after 13.75 billion years evolution needs help now!) say it is.

I have explained the difference between the created creators man, and the Creator, which is the uncreated Creator as the Infinite, Eternal Mind, only to have sarcasm thrown right back in my face with comments and questions and even new OP's like: "Why can't there be two creators?"
So I explain; "Because THE Creator is Infinite and Eternal, and there can only be One Infinite and Eternal, if there were two, one could not be infinite" .. only to come back with the 'infinite regress' question; "so why can't there be two creators, or different sizes of infinites?"

So we can throw out 'Creator', or the Infinite and Eternal Creator Spirit/Mind, since infinite and eternal doesn't fit the 'religious context of this Forum'.

And should a New Debater show intelligence, or God-forbid support what arian said, he is quickly reminded of the 'little button on the top right of our posts'.

* So since there is nothing that is undeniable,
* since any story can be considered 'scientific' no matter how outrageous,
* where evidence is whatever is popular at the time, or what leading debaters allow to be,
* where Infinite, Eternal and 'nothing' is no longer infinite, eternal or 'nothing', then the idea of the uncreated-Creator outside of religious doctrines, or without 'infinite regress' cannot be accepted, .. period, end of story, ... right Z?

So under these circumstances where absolutes don't exist, under such 'popular New Age, redefined Orwellian One World guidelines, I would like to 'recant', and repent for having even responded to your OP, which thanks to you and a few others here has been debated ad nauseam just as your OP states, .. and that was before anyone even responded!?.. hmm???



-------------
I'm with you Starman, and I would love to see more of your posts. Don't worry about jumping in the water, the corals (topics) are interesting, .. just watch out not to jump on one of those sharks swimming 'at the top', they'll eat you man!

[Starman]

'Cause some of us consider rationality rises above the ability to spell words correctly.

Clownboat's rationality is splashed across these pages.

So YOU say. Atheists claim a very great deal without "proving" their/your claims.
Christians must "prove," to your exclusive satisfaction, this and that. You have nothing to "prove" but everything to claim.

How much evidence does one need in order to accept that an atheist rejects the claims of those who can't show they speak truth?

How much evidence has one atheist SHOWN in order to demonstrate the "truth" you so urgently profess? The answer is, "exceedingly little to none." What I have read so far is that there are rocks here to be avoided, and denial, denial, denial.
Not simply denial but cock-sure, absolute *scientific* and *rational* denial.

Falsifus dichotomous.

Impressive Latin. I asked for your inputs of any third option, if indeed there is a third option. You answer with two Latin words. Not rational. Not convincing.

Nothing must also be something, if there you sit a-tellin' about it.

As one physicist said, "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong."

You couldn't be wronger if ya wrote that in all caps.

Your comment is the atheists' equivalent of "La, la, la, I can't hear you." Would you please reply seriously, with, oh "proof".


I see no point in continuing to reply to faux Southern twang and giggly condescension you persist in displaying.

If there is an ignore option, I will apply it to you. Please do likewise.
Nothing remotely productive can come of any further conversation between you and me. This may well be true of virtually all atheists here.

[Starman]

Hello Z, and welcome to the Forum Starman!

I believe I have answered your request in this OP Z, and have given enough various examples to justify my claim both from scientific, philosophical, historical, non-religious Biblical, including comparisons to other first-cause ideologies, other claimed creators or first causers, and look where it ended up, with me diagnosed with Bi-Polar disorder from medications which I may or may not be taking.

I don't need help in defining what I know, but I sure could use help in defending positions that I have made perfectly clear, and are being mocked.

///

* So since there is nothing that is undeniable,
* since any story can be considered 'scientific' no matter how outrageous,
* where evidence is whatever is popular at the time, or what leading debaters allow to be,
* where Infinite, Eternal and 'nothing' is no longer infinite, eternal or 'nothing', then the idea of the uncreated-Creator outside of religious doctrines, or without 'infinite regress' cannot be accepted, .. period, end of story, ... right Z?

So under these circumstances where absolutes don't exist, under such 'popular New Age, redefined Orwellian One World guidelines, I would like to 'recant', and repent for having even responded to your OP, which thanks to you and a few others here has been debated ad nauseam just as your OP states, .. and that was before anyone even responded!?.. hmm???



-------------
I'm with you Starman, and I would love to see more of your posts. Don't worry about jumping in the water, the corals (topics) are interesting, .. just watch out not to jump on one of those sharks swimming 'at the top', they'll eat you man!

More of my posts coming, my friend. But perhaps not too many more. As you say, "ad nauseum."

[Starman]

[Replying to post 381 by JoeyKnothead]

I shall not respond to anything else you post due to the fact that nothing you said makes any sense here. I appreciate the forum's IGNORE button.

ciao

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 385:

'Cause some of us consider rationality rises above the ability to spell words correctly.

Clownboat's rationality is splashed across these pages.

So YOU say. Atheists claim a very great deal without "proving" their/your claims.

Do you consider spelling more important than rationality?

Clownboat's posts are available to all to consider.

Please link to and quote verbatim claims I've made you wish to challenge.

Christians must "prove," to your exclusive satisfaction, this and that.

I present challenges to Christian claims and have no control over their non/willingness or non/ability to show they speak truth.

You have nothing to "prove" but everything to claim.

Please link to and quote verbatim claims I've made you seek to challenge.

How much evidence has one atheist SHOWN in order to demonstrate the "truth" you so urgently profess?

Please link to and quote verbatim claims I've made you seek to challenge.

What I have read so far is that there are rocks here to be avoided...

My recommendation is that folks avoid falling rocks, or rocks being flung at 'em. Do you disagree?

and denial, denial, denial.

I've never denied that rocks have the potential to cause harm.

Not simply denial but cock-sure, absolute *scientific* and *rational* denial.

Funny, here I thought it was you with the "cock-sure" attitude. Regardless, such a condition could be corrected upon the presentation of scientific, rational arguments showing a god exists (per OP topic).

Falsifus dichotomous.

Impressive Latin.

Thanks. I can do Igpay Atinlay too.

I asked for your inputs of any third option, if indeed there is a third option. You answer with two Latin words. Not rational. Not convincing.

You didn't ask for a third option...

Matter, energy, time, space, information, correspondence, beauty, consciousness and things unseen in our universe were either created by:

a. An Intelligent Creator, or
b. Nothing.

I don't see me the first question mark.

Returning...

Nothing must also be something, if there you sit a-tellin' about it.

As one physicist said, "That isn't right. It isn't even wrong."

I was making a comparison to "God's there y'all".

If only as a concept, "nothing" exists.

You couldn't be wronger if ya wrote that in all caps.

Your comment is the atheists' equivalent of "La, la, la, I can't hear you." Would you please reply seriously, with, oh "proof".

My point was within the context of the post.

You've quickly built a reputation for declaring what all atheists think, while offering no proof of your own.

I see no point in continuing to reply to faux Southern twang and giggly condescension you persist in displaying.

You won't be the first Christian whose given up trying to rebut my position.

That twang ain't faux, I type like I talk.

That giggly condescension is offered as a return of your own.

If there is an ignore option, I will apply it to you.

There is, and I'd be proud to see you added to the list of Christians who've decided it's safer to avoid my refutations and arguments.

While it would be uncivil to say those who ignore others are cowards, the observer can't be faulted for a-thinkin' it.

Nothing remotely productive can come of any further conversation between you and me.

I respect that you've given up trying to refute my arguments and refutations.

This may well be true of virtually all atheists here.

For those keeping score at home, that'll be one more Christian whose given up trying to refute the arguments of atheists.

(le edeet de claritee)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 387:

I shall not respond to anything else you post due to the fact that nothing you said makes any sense here. I appreciate the forum's IGNORE button.

ciao

[youtube][/youtube]