Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[iamtaka]

How does that remark advance the debate?
What 'strawman?' How has it been 'dismantled?' What 'mockery and ridicule?'
In other words, 'What ARE you talking about?

It advances the debate through clarification.

The Strawman. Tired of the Nonsense presented an argument against a complex god. Christian theism holds to a simple god. Therefore, the argument does not address the Christian God.

The Dismantling. A link was provided which gives an in depth overview of the doctrine of divine simplicity.

The Mockery and Ridicule. Tired of the Nonsense responded to the dismantling by mocking and ridiculing the notion of divine simplicity.

To clarify further:

insulting or contemptuous action or speech

a feeling that someone or something is not worthy of any respect or approval

One would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the sarcastic tone of his response was not contemptuous speech.

the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way : harsh comments made by people who are laughing at someone or something

One would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the sarcastic tone of his response was not attempting to make fun of the doctrine of divine simplicity.

So, now that his attempts have been demonstrated to fail and engage in uncivil discourse, we can happily ignore them and move forward.

[Danmark]

How does that remark advance the debate?
What 'strawman?' How has it been 'dismantled?' What 'mockery and ridicule?'
In other words, 'What ARE you talking about?

It advances the debate through clarification.

The Strawman. Tired of the Nonsense presented an argument against a complex god. Christian theism holds to a simple god. Therefore, the argument does not address the Christian God.

The Dismantling. A link was provided which gives an in depth overview of the doctrine of divine simplicity.

The Mockery and Ridicule. Tired of the Nonsense responded to the dismantling by mocking and ridiculing the notion of divine simplicity.

To clarify further:

insulting or contemptuous action or speech

a feeling that someone or something is not worthy of any respect or approval

One would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the sarcastic tone of his response was not contemptuous speech.

the act of making fun of someone or something in a cruel or harsh way : harsh comments made by people who are laughing at someone or something

One would be hard pressed to demonstrate that the sarcastic tone of his response was not attempting to make fun of the doctrine of divine simplicity.

So, now that his attempts have been demonstrated to fail and engage in uncivil discourse, we can happily ignore them and move forward.

I'm sorry but I don't see how you've clarified anything. Certainly 'quoting' non existent members: 'mockery, ridicule and contempt' has not clarified any thing. I don't see where Tired said anything uncivil or contemptuous.
Perhaps it would help if you would point out what part of Tired's summary,

Christians declare that an invisible all powerful all knowing but ultimately unknowable Being, fully omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, who can manipulate matter and alter the laws of physics at His whim, who created everything which exists from a word but who is not responsible for evil, and who at times becomes frustrated, disappointed and angry at the way human events transpire, sent Himself to earth in human form to die in agony so to shed His own blood in accordance with His own rules and so redeem humankind for succumbing to the lies of the evil being that the all knowing infallible Being created but is not responsible for. And this redeemer who has been proclaimed to be about to return at any moment now for the last 2,000 years will judge humankind and allow the invisible souls of the righteous to enter into an invisible dwelling place to be with the invisible Being,

is an inaccurate statement of Christian doctrine. His summary of Christian doctrine may not be flattering to Christianity, but exactly what part of it is inaccurate?

[iamtaka]

I'm sorry but I don't see how you've clarified anything. Certainly 'quoting' non existent members: 'mockery, ridicule and contempt' has not clarified any thing.

Really? We're going to play this game? Look at the links.

I don't see where Tired said anything uncivil or contemptuous.
Perhaps it would help if you would point out what part of Tired's summary ... is an inaccurate statement of Christian doctrine. His summary of Christian doctrine may not be flattering to Christianity, but exactly what part of it is inaccurate?

Why did Tired of the Nonsense post a long-winded summary? Why did he include a negatively loaded phrase such as 'make believe,' a sarcastic statement about the doctrines stated as being 'obvious,' and conclude his final statements with exclamation points?

The issue is not accuracy. That is a red herring. The issue is the tone of his response. It's clearly indicative of one seeking to mock and ridicule to score points for one's fallacious argument.

[Danmark]

I'm sorry but I don't see how you've clarified anything. Certainly 'quoting' non existent members: 'mockery, ridicule and contempt' has not clarified any thing.

Really? We're going to play this game? Look at the links.

I don't see where Tired said anything uncivil or contemptuous.
Perhaps it would help if you would point out what part of Tired's summary ... is an inaccurate statement of Christian doctrine. His summary of Christian doctrine may not be flattering to Christianity, but exactly what part of it is inaccurate?

Why did Tired of the Nonsense post a long-winded summary? Why did he include a negatively loaded phrase such as 'make believe,' a sarcastic statement about the doctrines stated as being 'obvious,' and conclude his final statements with exclamation points?

The issue is not accuracy. That is a red herring. The issue is the tone of his response. It's clearly indicative of one seeking to mock and ridicule to score points for one's fallacious argument.

No, I'm not going to go searching around for your links. Can't you simply make your argument in a straight forward way? You have registered no objection to Tired's summary of Christian doctrine. Does this mean you agree with it?

I'm not interested in your accusations of 'sarcasm' or what you call a 'loaded phrase.'

It would simplify things for my tired old brain if you simply demonstrated the ideas you favor and made a simple critique of what you disagree with, leaving out any personal remarks or opinions on 'tone.' If you have an issue about rule violations, you can simply privately report it. I am only interested in your argument about content. These references to 'tone' and 'sarcasm' and 'red herrings' and 'mocking and ridicule' only serve to obstruct the argument you may be attempting to make.

For example, instead of referring to a 'fallacious argument,' it would be more helpful if you simply quoted the part of the argument you think 'fallacious,' and then made your point about why it fails.

[iamtaka]

No, I'm not going to go searching around for your links. Can't you simply make your argument in a straight forward way? You have registered no objection to Tired's summary of Christian doctrine. Does this mean you agree with it?

I'm not interested in your accusations of 'sarcasm' or what you call a 'loaded phrase.'

It would simplify things for my tired old brain if you simply demonstrated the ideas you favor and made a simple critique of what you disagree with, leaving out any personal remarks or opinions on 'tone.' If you have an issue about rule violations, you can simply privately report it. I am only interested in your argument about content. These references to 'tone' and 'sarcasm' and 'red herrings' and 'mocking and ridicule' only serve to obstruct the argument you may be attempting to make.

For example, instead of referring to a 'fallacious argument,' it would be more helpful if you simply quoted the part of the argument you think 'fallacious,' and then made your point about why it fails.

This is becoming tedious.

It seems to me that I have made it quite clear that I am no fan of nonsense. And the proposition that something like an RNA molecule is too complicated to exist without the necessity of an intelligent designer, and so it therefore MUST be the result of an uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated then an RNA molecule certainly qualifies as nonsense. Even if by some convoluted quirk of mathematical improbability this should prove to be the case, it certainly IS NOT logical. Common experience indicates overwhelmingly that claims such as this which defy all possible logic tend overwhelmingly to be pure and utter nonsense. Nonsense on this scale is like an old stinky diaper; put it behind you and move on as quickly as possible.

Who is this 'uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated?' This was posted in response to you. It was clearly referencing a response to 99percentatheism -- a Christian.

Among the various things that observational analysis has informed us of, is that we are composed of "non thinking stuff." We are in fact composed of the very same "non thinking stuff" as rocks or trees, or pretty much anything else composed of matter. The very same "non thinking stuff" you find in an RNA molecule. An RNA molecule is not intelligent. In fact it's not even biologically alive. It does have the ability to replicate itself however, which is, admittedly, pretty damned remarkable. Did it create itself? It's not even intelligent. Or was it's origin an accident of chemistry? Something which occurred spontaneously as a result of ongoing chemical processes, a vast amount of time, and the fact that such a molecule with the ability to replicate itself is not only possible but, given enough time, perhaps even inevitable? Too hard to believe? It does undeniably exist. Your contention of course is that it must have been created by an intelligent designer. If your contention is true, then this intelligent designer MUST itself have been created by an intelligent designer. You can't assume a fact to be true, and then immediately break the rules. If your intelligent designer, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, simply "just exists" in your mind, without the need or necessity of prior intelligent design, then how much vastly more likely would it have been for a very simple RNA molecule to have arisen spontaneously as a result of the ongoing chemistry processes that were occurring on the early Earth? If we really wish to know how things work, then we must accept the facts as we find then at face value. Making up stories because them make us feel all warm and fuzzy and special might be comforting, but they serve no purpose in the pursuit of true knowledge. And observational truths inevitably prevail over warm and fuzzy, but baseless, assumptions. For most of human history, religious philosophies provided the only plausible, such as they were, answers to the great questions of existence. Now science has shown us that there is another way, one in which no recourse to supernatural explanations is needed. This "new atheism" that you speak of is based on the growing realization that religious explanations are not, and never were really, valid. They are and always have been, make believe. The rapid rise of non belief that you are currently observing is not simply a fad, it is the wave of the future based on our current understanding of the scientific principles which govern the universe. You of course will hold on to your old fashioned supernatural notions until the day you die. But you can't change the inevitable. Because in an open marketplace of ideas, the truth will inevitably prevail.

The 'uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated,' to which Tired of the Nonsense is referring, is the Christian God. Yet, as I have pointed out, Christian theism does not view God as complex. Instead, Christian theism adheres to a view of God as simple. This is called the doctrine of divine simplicity. Thus, Tired of the Nonsense has incorrectly understood the Christian God and argued against a complex god while incorrectly assuming he was dealing a blow to the Christian worldview. He was arguing against a straw man. As such, his argument is fallacious. It fails.

My subsequent post to Tired of the Nonsense was a clarification of that fact and further pointed out that once his argument was demonstrated to have failed he responded with mockery and ridicule because that's all that remained in his tool chest.

[Danmark]

The 'uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated,' to which Tired of the Nonsense is referring, is the Christian God. Yet, as I have pointed out, Christian theism does not view God as complex. Instead, Christian theism adheres to a view of God as simple. This is called the doctrine of divine simplicity. Thus, Tired of the Nonsense has incorrectly understood the Christian God and argued against a complex god while incorrectly assuming he was dealing a blow to the Christian worldview. He was arguing against a straw man. As such, his argument is fallacious. It fails.

My subsequent post to Tired of the Nonsense was a clarification of that fact and further pointed out that once his argument was demonstrated to have failed he responded with mockery and ridicule because that's all that remained in his tool chest.

Thank you. I confess I do not see the import of whether this is seen as simple or complex. What hits me is that there is apparently no dispute that Tired's description:

Christians declare that an invisible all powerful all knowing but ultimately unknowable Being, fully omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, who can manipulate matter and alter the laws of physics at His whim, who created everything which exists from a word but who is not responsible for evil, and who at times becomes frustrated, disappointed and angry at the way human events transpire, sent Himself to earth in human form to die in agony so to shed His own blood in accordance with His own rules and so redeem humankind for succumbing to the lies of the evil being that the all knowing infallible Being created but is not responsible for. And this redeemer who has been proclaimed to be about to return at any moment now for the last 2,000 years will judge humankind and allow the invisible souls of the righteous to enter into an invisible dwelling place to be with the invisible Being,

is accurate. Since this is a good summary of Christian doctrine, and one that has not been objected to, it beggars the imagination that any one could read this and not find this 'god' and this doctrine hopelessly ridiculous. I would be utterly embarrassed to take such a 'god' seriously. I can't see how anyone could consider such an absurd and illogical doctrine seriously and 'stake one's life upon it.'

The only thing I can suppose is that by virtue of having it beat into one's head for the first 15 or 20 years of one's life, it seems natural. But to an objective and mature reader, new to this doctrine, it is absurd. Jack and the Bean Stalk makes more sense.

Surely out there somewhere is a Christian Apologist who can either defend this monstrous absurdity, or who can challenge the summary as misrepresenting true Christian doctrine.

[FarWanderer]

I think you are a bit confused. I was not argueing over whether or not the universe exist. I agree with you that the universe exist. What we are disagreeing over is the origin of the universe. What evidence do you have that proves the universe has always been? Are you serious when you say you have no idea what the word God means?? Even small children can grasp somewhat of the idea of what God means.

Relativity has already shown that the universe has always been. It has shown that time is part of the universe, so there exists no point in time in which the universe has not existed.

So yes, the universe has "always been". This is true regardless of whether the universe extends finitely into the past or infinitely.

[iamtaka]

I confess I do not see the import of whether this is seen as simple or complex.

Tired of the Nonsense presented a bad argument. Bad arguments rarely advance the discussion. There are more often an impediment.

What hits me is that there is apparently no dispute that Tired's description ... is accurate. Since this is a good summary of Christian doctrine, and one that has not been objected to, it beggars the imagination that any one could read this and not find this 'god' and this doctrine hopelessly ridiculous. I would be utterly embarrassed to take such a 'god' seriously. I can't see how anyone could consider such an absurd and illogical doctrine seriously and 'stake one's life upon it.'

The only thing I can suppose is that by virtue of having it beat into one's head for the first 15 or 20 years of one's life, it seems natural. But to an objective and mature reader, new to this doctrine, it is absurd. Jack and the Bean Stalk makes more sense.

Surely out there somewhere is a Christian Apologist who can either defend this monstrous absurdity, or who can challenge the summary as misrepresenting true Christian doctrine.

I am growing tired of these manipulative tactics. I am willing to grant that perhaps you do not intend to be manipulative with the response above, but that's certainly how the response comes across to someone trained in linguistics and rhetoric. Why? The post breezes over the point made by my posts and makes use of conversational implicature to inject a directed challenge into the discussion. Again, perhaps you did not intend that or you're unaware of the force of your words, but it certainly comes across as manipulative.

[Sir Hamilton]

The 'uncreated intelligent designer who is almost infinitely more complicated,' to which Tired of the Nonsense is referring, is the Christian God. Yet, as I have pointed out, Christian theism does not view God as complex. Instead, Christian theism adheres to a view of God as simple. This is called the doctrine of divine simplicity. Thus, Tired of the Nonsense has incorrectly understood the Christian God and argued against a complex god while incorrectly assuming he was dealing a blow to the Christian worldview. He was arguing against a straw man. As such, his argument is fallacious. It fails.

My subsequent post to Tired of the Nonsense was a clarification of that fact and further pointed out that once his argument was demonstrated to have failed he responded with mockery and ridicule because that's all that remained in his tool chest.

Thank you. I confess I do not see the import of whether this is seen as simple or complex. What hits me is that there is apparently no dispute that Tired's description:

Christians declare that an invisible all powerful all knowing but ultimately unknowable Being, fully omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, who can manipulate matter and alter the laws of physics at His whim, who created everything which exists from a word but who is not responsible for evil, and who at times becomes frustrated, disappointed and angry at the way human events transpire, sent Himself to earth in human form to die in agony so to shed His own blood in accordance with His own rules and so redeem humankind for succumbing to the lies of the evil being that the all knowing infallible Being created but is not responsible for. And this redeemer who has been proclaimed to be about to return at any moment now for the last 2,000 years will judge humankind and allow the invisible souls of the righteous to enter into an invisible dwelling place to be with the invisible Being,

is accurate. Since this is a good summary of Christian doctrine, and one that has not been objected to, it beggars the imagination that any one could read this and not find this 'god' and this doctrine hopelessly ridiculous. I would be utterly embarrassed to take such a 'god' seriously. I can't see how anyone could consider such an absurd and illogical doctrine seriously and 'stake one's life upon it.'

The only thing I can suppose is that by virtue of having it beat into one's head for the first 15 or 20 years of one's life, it seems natural. But to an objective and mature reader, new to this doctrine, it is absurd. Jack and the Bean Stalk makes more sense.

Surely out there somewhere is a Christian Apologist who can either defend this monstrous absurdity, or who can challenge the summary as misrepresenting true Christian doctrine.

I just read this summary....I did find a few things that I don't agree with...he said "unknowable". God IS knowable, i know Him. He said "frustrated disappointed angry"...i suppose God can have emotions...can't He? He did not die for all mankind he died for his elect. If God gave this "evil being" freewill then how is God responsible? And he is incorrect....Jesus has not been about to return at any moment for 2000 years. It will still be awhile before my Lord returns. But yep most of the other stuff was more or less accurate....so what's the problem??

[Sir Hamilton]

I confess I do not see the import of whether this is seen as simple or complex.

Tired of the Nonsense presented a bad argument. Bad arguments rarely advance the discussion. There are more often an impediment.

What hits me is that there is apparently no dispute that Tired's description ... is accurate. Since this is a good summary of Christian doctrine, and one that has not been objected to, it beggars the imagination that any one could read this and not find this 'god' and this doctrine hopelessly ridiculous. I would be utterly embarrassed to take such a 'god' seriously. I can't see how anyone could consider such an absurd and illogical doctrine seriously and 'stake one's life upon it.'

The only thing I can suppose is that by virtue of having it beat into one's head for the first 15 or 20 years of one's life, it seems natural. But to an objective and mature reader, new to this doctrine, it is absurd. Jack and the Bean Stalk makes more sense.

Surely out there somewhere is a Christian Apologist who can either defend this monstrous absurdity, or who can challenge the summary as misrepresenting true Christian doctrine.

I am growing tired of these manipulative tactics. I am willing to grant that perhaps you do not intend to be manipulative with the response above, but that's certainly how the response comes across to someone trained in linguistics and rhetoric. Why? The post breezes over the point made by my posts and makes use of conversational implicature to inject a directed challenge into the discussion. Again, perhaps you did not intend that or you're unaware of the force of your words, but it certainly comes across as manipulative.

Of course they are being manipulative but don't let that bother you. Think about this...they spend all this time studying and criticizing a belief system that they don't even believe in to begin with....rather silly huh? They tear down Christianity but have nothing better to offer. And besides when you know God you can kick back and grab a cold one and laugh at how they deny Him as you are looking right at Him.