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?

[instantc]

Whether we discuss 'god' or 'the universe' we are really talking about concepts difficult to define. Saying 'god created the universe' is a bit like saying 'infinity + 1'. Why not 'the universe created god?'

I agree that all we are doing here is speculating. But as long as we are doing that, we might as well do it as best we can and not throw the little clues we have out of the window. Since it doesn't seem to be possible for there to exist an infinite number of anything, I'm inclined to accept that there probably exists or has existed a first cause that is not affected by time.

If my point is not clear [likely it isn't ] 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.

It's not very helpful to define 'universe' as potentially including God. Why not just agree that our universe hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, since that seems rational? Then we can hear out suggestions as to why the external cause should be a person, instead of perhaps another universe or something else.

[FarWanderer]

Whether we discuss 'god' or 'the universe' we are really talking about concepts difficult to define. Saying 'god created the universe' is a bit like saying 'infinity + 1'. Why not 'the universe created god?'

I agree that all we are doing here is speculating. But as long as we are doing that, we might as well do it as best we can and not throw the little clues we have out of the window. Since it doesn't seem to be possible for there to exist an infinite number of anything, I'm inclined to accept that there probably exists or has existed a first cause that is not affected by time.

If my point is not clear [likely it isn't ] 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.

It's not very helpful to define 'universe' as potentially including God. Why not just agree that our universe hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, since that seems rational? Then we can hear out suggestions as to why the external cause should be a person, instead of perhaps another universe or something else.

Should we also agree that this supposed external cause hasn't existed an infinite amount of time, because that "seems rational"?

[olavisjo]

.

Should we also agree that this supposed external cause hasn't existed an infinite amount of time, because that "seems rational"?

Seems rational to me. How long has the concept of the number three existed? It seems to just exist, time or no time.

[Goat]

Whether we discuss 'god' or 'the universe' we are really talking about concepts difficult to define. Saying 'god created the universe' is a bit like saying 'infinity + 1'. Why not 'the universe created god?'

I agree that all we are doing here is speculating. But as long as we are doing that, we might as well do it as best we can and not throw the little clues we have out of the window. Since it doesn't seem to be possible for there to exist an infinite number of anything, I'm inclined to accept that there probably exists or has existed a first cause that is not affected by time.

But, until you have some hard core evidence, it's speculation, and quite often, wishful thinking and bias. The thread is 'Do you have evidence', not 'do you have speculation'. How could you confirm that something can exists that is not affected by time?

[Danmark]

Whether we discuss 'god' or 'the universe' we are really talking about concepts difficult to define. Saying 'god created the universe' is a bit like saying 'infinity + 1'. Why not 'the universe created god?'

I agree that all we are doing here is speculating. But as long as we are doing that, we might as well do it as best we can and not throw the little clues we have out of the window. Since it doesn't seem to be possible for there to exist an infinite number of anything, I'm inclined to accept that there probably exists or has existed a first cause that is not affected by time.

If my point is not clear [likely it isn't ] 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.

It's not very helpful to define 'universe' as potentially including God. Why not just agree that our universe hasn't existed for an infinite amount of time, since that seems rational? Then we can hear out suggestions as to why the external cause should be a person, instead of perhaps another universe or something else.

I don't understand why you say it is not rational to define the universe as having always been. It seems more rational than the alternative: 'it came from nothing*'
I don't posit an external cause because it isn't necessary to do so, occam's razor.

____________________
*By 'nothing' we can use either the philosopher's absolute absence of anything or state, or Krauss's 'nothing.' Krauss's 'nothing' fits my first alternative.

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post 2672--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.


I have tried to follow your position on this thread but again it appears nonsensical to me. You believe in the immensity of the universe. You believe in the absolute certainty of other life creations within this immensity. I have stated this before. You Danmark, have populated the universe, not I. Your acceptance of Mathematical Probability and Science lead absolutely to your belief in aliens.

A simple question Danmark.

A person reads an ancient book called the Bible and decides to accept the reality of a pre-historic global flood having occurred. They find this same event alluded to within many diverse global religions. A second person engages with the modern theories regarding the structure, range, and movements of the universe and they conclude that space travel will eventually be possible for us all. The first person extends their hypothesis to include a man called Noah with a boat that helps preserve the D.N.A. of existence while the second person imagines a futuristic spaceship loaded with the D.N.A. remnants, salvaged from a dying planet.

You have committed yourself to this futurism. The important question remains. Why do you differentiate between your own theorizing and that of religiously motivated thinkers?
Perhaps, consider the words and view point of Sir Hamilton Post 2673--They appeal to "science" as if that is some kind of god to them. What they call "science" I call nonsense and wishful thinking.

[Danmark]

re Danmark Post 2672--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.


I have tried to follow your position on this thread but again it appears nonsensical to me. You believe in the immensity of the universe. You believe in the absolute certainty of other life creations within this immensity.
....

Your claimed inability to understand me is your own problem. I have advised you 3 times not to misstate what I write. Since you either don't have the ability to understand my plain English, or are being deliberately obtuse, I am not going to try to explain to you again. To be specific, you insist on changing my words like 'reasonably likely' into your "absolute certainty" or "inevitability" and then having misstated what I write, you want argue with your self. Others have pointed this out to you as well. In addition you ignore requests to back up your claims and accusations.
Whether this is an inability you have, or you are doing it in purpose, the result is the same. and I see no reason for further discourse with you.
Merry Christmas!

[zeromeansnothing]

re Danmark Post2681--To be specific, you insist on changing my words like 'reasonably likely' into your "absolute certainty" or "inevitability"

It is objectively unlikely that I have misrepresented your ideas on this thread. I am to assume that you write as you mean. Here is the context of your reasonably likely phrase
re Danmark Post 2667--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.

You state a position of absolute certainty or the inevitability of aliens or extraterrestrials. You said it and emphasised it with a link suggesting mathematical certainty, I only repeated your view. If you wish to change your mind about this then please dispense with the theatrical and do so.

[dianaiad]

re Danmark Post2681--To be specific, you insist on changing my words like 'reasonably likely' into your "absolute certainty" or "inevitability"

It is objectively unlikely that I have misrepresented your ideas on this thread. I am to assume that you write as you mean. Here is the context of your reasonably likely phrase
re Danmark Post 2667--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.

You state a position of absolute certainty or the inevitability of aliens or extraterrestrials. You said it and emphasised it with a link suggesting mathematical certainty, I only repeated your view. If you wish to change your mind about this then please dispense with the theatrical and do so.

Moderator Comment

"highly likely" is not 'absolute certainty" nor yet 'inevitability.' Please refrain from deliberately misquoting other posters, especially after you have been corrected. Doing so may be seen as inflammatory.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Star]

re Danmark Post2681--To be specific, you insist on changing my words like 'reasonably likely' into your "absolute certainty" or "inevitability"

It is objectively unlikely that I have misrepresented your ideas on this thread. I am to assume that you write as you mean. Here is the context of your reasonably likely phrase
re Danmark Post 2667--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.

You state a position of absolute certainty or the inevitability of aliens or extraterrestrials. You said it and emphasised it with a link suggesting mathematical certainty, I only repeated your view. If you wish to change your mind about this then please dispense with the theatrical and do so.

Are you for real? How is it possible for an English-speaking adult to not know the difference between "absolutely certain" and "highly likely"?