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?

[Haven]

What kind of evidence would you accept? [for God's existence]

Empirical, testable evidence, analyzed by trained scientists and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Personal experience isn't enough (I could be hallucinating or mistaken), and neither is preaching / dogma / etc.

Sorry I can't provide you God or a god to analyze or test. I can provide you with an entire list of trained scientists that have analyzed and tested data that makes them come to the conclusion that the earth is young and do believe in a Creator. I gave goat a list in a previous post.

The appeal to authority fallacy doesn't impress me at all. I want actual evidence, not just an appeal to creationists with (often dubious) scientific credentials. Why do these scholars accept creationism/gods? What evidence do they have to back up their beliefs?

Let us put aside my personal relationship with God and pretend like I don't know Him. How do you explain the origin of man? of life? of the universe?

Humans evolved from other forms of life over billions of years. Life itself began via a process of abiogenesis about 3.8 billion years ago. The universe reached its current state via a 'big bang' approximately 13.8 billion years ago. Science has yet to discover the explanation for the ultimate origin of the cosmos, so the only honest answer I can give to that is "I don't know."

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post 2663-- If my point is not clear [likely it isn't Smile ] what I'm saying is that when we use undefinable terms like 'god' and 'the universe' we literally don't know what we're talking about. When I say 'universe' I mean all possible universes, multiverses, gods, and everything that could be, has been or ever was.

This makes sense to me Danmark. We do not know what we are talking about. A belief in the universe is absolutely the same as a belief in God. Sir Hamilton tried to tell you this. You believe in the immensity of the universe. You believe in the inevitability of there being organic and other life creations within this immensity ie, you believe in aliens.
You theorize about the composition of a universe just as religious people try and advance their awareness of an unseen God. A belief in human scientific capacity is a religious belief and it is pointless to suggest otherwise. It was suggested that philosophy is being replaced by science. This will not happen, as Sir Hamilton pointed out. Do you believe in this . Will logic and sense be replaced by science too.
I have many questions to ask you about your universe as I am at a complete loss regarding your belief in that which you admit to knowing little about.

[Danmark]

re Danmark Post 2663-- If my point is not clear [likely it isn't Smile ] what I'm saying is that when we use undefinable terms like 'god' and 'the universe' we literally don't know what we're talking about. When I say 'universe' I mean all possible universes, multiverses, gods, and everything that could be, has been or ever was.

This makes sense to me Danmark. We do not know what we are talking about. A belief in the universe is absolutely the same as a belief in God. Sir Hamilton tried to tell you this. You believe in the immensity of the universe. You believe in the inevitability of there being organic and other life creations within this immensity ie, you believe in aliens.
....

[please disregard my attempt at self deprecatory comic relief]
If you don't know how to do a proper quote with BBCode, send me a private message and I'll try to help. I don't believe Sir Hamilton 'tried to tell' me what you suggest. He can speak for himself.

Where you go wrong is when you claim "belief in the universe is absolutely the same as a belief in God." It is not. Tho' both terms may ultimately try to define an indefinable infinite; 'god' at least in theistic terms, adds the quality of personality. Or as others have put it, 'a god that is not less than personal.' "The universe" does not imply personality. This is a qualitative difference.

If by 'god' you are referring to an impersonal, non theistic entity indistinguishable from nature or the universe and devoid of personality and intention and purpose, then yes, perhaps the terms point to the same thing.

A note on 'aliens.' I have not used that term. You have twice tried to ascribe its usage to me. 'Aliens' carries a lot of baggage, much of it from Sci-Fi fiction. The word connotes a kind of humanoid being from another planet. I avowed no such belief in such 'aliens.' I try to use my words carefully.

This is what I said:

Contrary to what some creationists and other theists maintain [That the odds against life as we know it evolving without a 'designer' are prohibitive] there are billions of 'goldilocks planets' in the Milky Way galaxy alone.

Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone.
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/8-8-bill ... s-exist-mi...
So I think it highly likely that not only did life evolve naturally on Earth, but on other planets as well. No designer needed.

Since I only say 'it's likely' I make no effort to describe it further, and resist your attempt to put the word 'aliens' into my sentences. I'm perfectly capable of misrepresenting myself without your help. Whether this 'life' in distant planets is anything we would recognize, whether it is as simple as an single celled organism or as complex as homo sapiens, I don't hazard a guess.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark--It is not. Tho' both terms may ultimately try to define an indefinable infinite; 'god' at least in theistic terms, adds the quality of personality. Or as others have put it, 'a god that is not less than personal.' "The universe" does not imply personality. This is a qualitative difference.


Is extra-terrestrial more to your liking than alien. You need to put a name to what you have stated to be inevitably true. You could in fact call it God.

The above quote by you Danmark defies my logic. You are saying that the constructing of a concept of a person type God within human religions is different to your subjective adherence to a belief in the few attained human insights regarding the universe. How is there a distinction? You attached personality to the universe by sprinkling its definition with your own personality and conjecture. Is this not true or am I missing something. You must show consistency in your argument if you wish to convince me that there is insight within your posts. Perhaps I should ask you a question about your universe tomorrow. Thank you for your responses to me.

[Sir Hamilton]

You got a computer use it....google it....don't take my word for it.

Don't make your audience do your research for you. You bear the burden of citing your sources. This is taught in any university English 101 course. Your sources don't need to be APA or MLA format, but you're expected to at least provide a link. If you fail to do this, it's only your argument that suffers.

In a previous post I listed scientists that believed in a young earth. I don't have the time nor the inclination to write a 'book' on this. If you want to learn then go research it if you don't then continue to believe in which scientists teach the things that tickle you ears.

Huh? A book?

I just finished explaining that a link, in the very least, would suffice. I'm not asking for a book. I'm not even asking for an essay, an article, a biography, or a speech. Heck, I'm not even asking you to write more. You have made choices to currently involve yourself in a debate, where you bear the burden of backing up your claims with sufficient evidence that you're able to specifically reference.

Accuse me of not wanting to learn all you want... it's not my job, as your reader, to read your mind, and Google the relevant keywords, just for the hopes of maybe eventually having the privileged of knowing what you're talking about.

You're entitled to do (or not do) as you wish, but don't expect your arguments to pull much weight.

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

[Sir Hamilton]

I have supported my claims and argument. Please go back and read each everyone of my posts. Hey I have an idea....why don't you show me some proof that supports your claims and arguments?

You have mentioned some people. How is mentioning some people actually supporting what your claims are. Without actually presenting the arguments and evidence for those arguments, it ends up being 'the appeal to authority'..

We all appeal to authority goat. You didn't come up with anything on your own. You read it in a "science" book or heard some goofy professor say it. You haven't presented anything to convince me that I should stop believing in God nor have you presented anything to make me think that you even have an idea of how the universe began, how life began, or the origin of man. Got anything?

[Danmark]

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

This is an open debate forum. Anything you 'discuss' with one member stands as if you said it to all, because you have. Star and any other member is as much a part of the debate as you or anyone. If you want a one on one debate, there is a forum for that.

[Danmark]

re Danmark--It is not. Tho' both terms may ultimately try to define an indefinable infinite; 'god' at least in theistic terms, adds the quality of personality. Or as others have put it, 'a god that is not less than personal.' "The universe" does not imply personality. This is a qualitative difference.



The above quote by you Danmark defies my logic.

Thank you. I'm not surprised. Perhaps if you accept the way I express my self instead of restating everything I write, you could see the distinction more clearly.

I'll try again.

The universe does not have a personality. The universe is not personal.

A theistic definition of God IS personal. The orthodox god of traditional theism is personal and has a personality. This is not a matter for debate or something that must contort itself to fit into 'your logic.'

This is simply a definition of terms. I'm not asking you to agree that the universe is devoid of personhood or personality. I am simply stating that, that is my definition of the universe, that it is devoid of personality and personhood.

If you want to include a personality of some kind as a part of the universe you are free to do so. But then we have a disagreement of terminology.

I have never before heard or read of anyone defining 'god' and 'the universe' as exactly the same concept, so I guess this is your chance to be the first. Just understand I do not share this confusion with you.

[Sir Hamilton]

re Danmark Post 2663-- If my point is not clear [likely it isn't Smile ] what I'm saying is that when we use undefinable terms like 'god' and 'the universe' we literally don't know what we're talking about. When I say 'universe' I mean all possible universes, multiverses, gods, and everything that could be, has been or ever was.

This makes sense to me Danmark. We do not know what we are talking about. A belief in the universe is absolutely the same as a belief in God. Sir Hamilton tried to tell you this. You believe in the immensity of the universe. You believe in the inevitability of there being organic and other life creations within this immensity ie, you believe in aliens.
You theorize about the composition of a universe just as religious people try and advance their awareness of an unseen God. A belief in human scientific capacity is a religious belief and it is pointless to suggest otherwise. It was suggested that philosophy is being replaced by science. This will not happen, as Sir Hamilton pointed out. Do you believe in this . Will logic and sense be replaced by science too.
I have many questions to ask you about your universe as I am at a complete loss regarding your belief in that which you admit to knowing little about.

Thank you. I haven't got much out of danmark and others on here either as far as their explanations of the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the origin of mankind. They appeal to "science" as if that is some kind of god to them. What they call "science" I call nonsense and wishful thinking. There are scientists that do indeed believe in God or a higher power as well as a young earth/universe. Basically you are right "science" will not replace philosophy at least on the issues of the orgin of the universe, life, and mankind.

[Sir Hamilton]

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

This is an open debate forum. Anything you 'discuss' with one member stands as if you said it to all, because you have. Star and any other member is as much a part of the debate as you or anyone. If you want a one on one debate, there is a forum for that.

Well thank you so kindly for letting me know that danmark.