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?

[Zzyzx]

.

- Pray to his supposed "God"
- Use the Bible as his "Word of God"
- Claims that HIS god is the real one, and everyone else's is Wrong
- said he has "Evidence" and "undeniable and scientific evidence of THE Creator/his "god", but after all this time, refuses to provide said Proof/Evidence

I don't know about the rest of you, but that sounds like EVERY other Religion to me. Would you all agree?

If that all doesn't constitute a religion and fit the definition of the term I don't know what would.

However, if someone wants to do all that and consider themselves non-religious, who are we to argue with their self-identified position?

I mean, let's be honest. If ANYONE had "UNDENIABLE and scientific evidence of THE Creator", We'd of all heard it by now. No one with that kind of "Evidence" would keep that to themselves! They'd be the Loudest person on Earth!

I agree. Christians (and other religionists) have been promising evidence for centuries and all they have produced are STORIES, claims, testimonials, conjectures, opinions, fables, legends, wishful thinking, etc -- nothing that can be even remotely identified as "undeniable scientific evidence"

But........Arian has Yet to provide ANY of that UNDENIABLE Evidence. So far, it's nothing more that Blind Faith. That equals Religion.

Agreed

Sadly, that type of "argument" for religion convinces many people to worship various proposed "gods."

[Inigo Montoya]

For the love of Zeus, can we all just agree to let the man use whatever stage-setting vocabulary he wishes so that maybe, just maybe, we can get to the UNDENIABLE and SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of THE CREATOR?

Stop interrupting this train wreck and perhaps we can have it laid out nicely for us.

Arian, proceed. I accept anything you want to set the stage.

Please now provide the scientific evidence of THE creator that I will find undeniable.

Thank you.

[arian]

.

So that I make myself absolutely clear before I come to some erroneous conclusion about the long established fact of the Big-bangs foundation, this "God Particle" and gods in general which both you and Zzyzx clearly find me in error, actually so far in everything I said seems to be in error and could not be agreed upon by either of you.

Correction: Zzyzx does NOT debate origin of the universe, god particle, infinity, etc and does not express opinion or pretend to have knowledge about such things.

I am so sorry Zzyzx, you see I must have terribly misunderstood when you said in;

Post 32-Zzyzx; It has NOT been established that the universe had a beginning. That is CONJECTURE, opinion, hypothesis, etc. Whether scientific or religious position, it cannot be demonstrated to be correct.
Perhaps you would like to back up and demonstrate that you KNOW and can verify with credible evidence that the universe had a beginning.

so I demonstrated that in both religious science fiction (Big-bang theory) AND in the History book called the Bible the universe is said to have a beginning. And I said that; "If there is a beginning, it is not, nor can ever become Infinite. That finite cannot become infinite"

To show you, or PROVE to you 'Infinite', I ask you to look out into the universe, out into space and ask: "What do I see?"
If you say 'Infinity, or infinite space filled with stars', ..
I would say; "no, you are looking at finite things with a lot of space between them. The reason it seems that it goes on and on forever is because of 'Infinity'. If Infinity wasn't there, you wouldn't see the vast seemingly endless space. What you would have is a religious view of a quantum-speck residing in nothing, or no-thing. And since the Lord revealed to me the existence of 'nothing' and I can demonstrate it, then logically a speck no matter how quantum, cannot in no way reside in 'nothing'. Why?
Because then that is not 'nothing' anymore. You cannot have anything in 'nothing', but as I have demonstrated many, .. many times in the past that 'nothing' does exist, and it exists in 'everything', for the simple logical reason, because 'everything' wouldn't be 'everything' if it didn't include the 'nothing'

But then you will just say: "Zzyzx does not look out into space, so your detailed undeniable evidence is null, .. nothing but preaching that does not belong in the 'Christianity and Apologetics sub forum'.

As for your post Zzyzx regarding the 'beginning of the universe', my answer is; if it is expanding, it is finite. If you can measure ANY part of it, .. it is finite. If you and I live in it, I'm telling you it is finite, not infinite.

Speculation concerning the origin of the universe is meaningless to Zzyzx. What you speculate concerning the origin is less than meaningless

So what you are saying is that 'Undeniable scientific fact based on evidence' is meaningless to Zzyzx? So why the hell did you call me out on my claim to scientifically prove the existence of the Creator??

Aaah.. I understand now, .. you were expecting another religious claim of some god/gods you were brought up believing/unbelieving in!? Remember, I was hoping to set some ground rules, and one was that 'God' does not necessarily mean 'religion'. I even gave you an entire post why it is important, remember?
"I am feeling gay this morning"
"What, you're feeling like a homosexual this morning?"
"No, I am feeling gay this morning"
"Why do you feel like a homosexual this morning?"

etc.. 'Agree on basic ground rules first', so we could avoid exactly what you are doing here. But

ot;Zzyzx"]

The history book the Bible says; "God created the Heavens and the earth" it has a beginning.

The bible may be regarded as a "history book" in church or in Christendom; however, it is NOT so regarded in debate here in the C&A Sub-forum. Those who wish to elevate the bible to history book status are welcome to do so in Holy Huddle or TD&D sub-forums.

Who are you to dictate where, how, and when I can consider the Bible as a "history book"?? You guys refer to at is a book on religious mythology, so are you saying that you are limiting my reference of the Bible to Hebrew Mythology or something, otherwise I cannot debate in the C&A sub-forum? Do I also have to refer to my God as an evil, cruel unloving dictator or I am 'out of here'?

Sorry Zzyzx, but I am neither your slave, nor one of your sheep when it comes to my God and the use of the Bible. You may have been a big part in removing the Bible from schools, and prayer from schools, or may even be planning to kick me off this forum, .. but you will never dictate when and where I can refer to the Bible, and 'what' I can refer to the Bible as.

This is why we must agree on some basic, basic things first before you could admit to the obvious presence of our Creator God which I am trying to reveal to you.

All you have revealed so far is total inability. EXACTLY what basic things must "we agree" upon in order for you to "reveal" your "knowledge?"

"All you have revealed so far is total inability"
"You cannot use the bible here as a history book"
"Prove that the universe had a beginning, but who said you can go and prove it? This is the C&A sub-forum, we don't debate scientific proof here, you must go on the debating science and Christianity for that"

Just lay out your evidence without fancy footwork, speculation, word salads or smoke screens and let everyone decide if it is anything more than "blowing smoke."

"Just lay out your evidence without fancy footwork"
"You didn't explain anything"
"you explain too much"
"Not enough evidence, need more detail"
"Stop your fancy foot work"
"we know what infinite means, like infinite numbers for instance so stop blowing smoke screens"
"God is nothing but Hebrew mythology, .. go ahead, prove your God!
Nope, .. wrong. That is not the god we know, which is nothing but ancient Hebrew mythology. Try again,
.. nope, there you go with your speculations explaining everything again. Try again
.. nope, you rambling way too much. Answer already, you haven't said anything!"

Otey, ...

It's no wonder none of you want to meet me in person, you couldn't face me or look me straight in the eye with these kind of responses. But as 'Zzyzx' you are safely hidden in a Forum separated from the other person by miles and miles of cables. here anything goes without seeing anyone. Like in Vegas ay? "What goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas."

[Zzyzx]

.

Perhaps you would like to back up and demonstrate that you KNOW and can verify with credible evidence that the universe had a beginning.

so I demonstrated that in both religious science fiction (Big-bang theory) AND in the History book called the Bible the universe is said to have a beginning. And I said that; "If there is a beginning, it is not, nor can ever become Infinite. That finite cannot become infinite"

All you show is that there are CLAIMS that the universe had a beginning – some theories from scientific study and some tales from religious folklore (that sometimes masquerades as history). Neither has been demonstrated to be truthful and accurate.

To show you, or PROVE to you 'Infinite', I ask you to look out into the universe, out into space and ask: "What do I see?"
If you say 'Infinity, or infinite space filled with stars', ..

You seriously error when attempting to pontificate about what Zzyzx sees or says. In truth as I look into the night sky I see points of light that are identified by astronomers as stars and galaxies – and the moon which I can examine in some detail with my telescope (a 4" Celestron refractor).

I make absolutely NO speculations or conjectures about infinity (or about origin of life, or demons, or devils). Those things are of no importance or interest in my life and I do not pretend to have knowledge that I do not have. Perhaps it is a difficult concept for many Theists to grasp since they often seem to think that they KNOW about such things after reading ancient speculations / opinions / stories or listening to sermons about the same or having personal emotional or psychological episodes (or "visions" or hallucinations or whatever).

But then you will just say: "Zzyzx does not look out into space, so your detailed undeniable evidence is null, .. nothing but preaching that does not belong in the 'Christianity and Apologetics sub forum'.

Dead wrong speculation about Zzyzx again. I live in the country where night views of the sky are not obstructed by ambient light – and I own and use a telescope.

What I do NOT do is speculate about infinity, the origin of the universe, the beginning of life, and other such issues that are currently beyond human understanding (beyond human ability to demonstrate knowledge). Empty, unverifiable, indemonstrable claims of knowledge do not impress me at all – and do not fare well in debate (as you may have noticed).

Speculation concerning the origin of the universe is meaningless to Zzyzx. What you speculate concerning the origin is less than meaningless

So what you are saying is that 'Undeniable scientific fact based on evidence' is meaningless to Zzyzx?

To what undeniable scientific fact do you refer?

So why the hell did you call me out on my claim to scientifically prove the existence of the Creator??

I often challenge claims of knowledge that are not substantiated. If you CLAIM to have undeniable scientific evidence of the creator, I (and Forum Rules) expect you to substantiate your claims.

When you cannot do so that is "egg on your face" – meaning you have made a boast that you cannot fulfill. It is not uncommon for people to become emotional, personal and even abusive when their claims are challenged and they cannot rise to the challenge.

The bible may be regarded as a "history book" in church or in Christendom; however, it is NOT so regarded in debate here in the C&A Sub-forum. Those who wish to elevate the bible to history book status are welcome to do so in Holy Huddle or TD&D sub-forums.

Who are you to dictate where, how, and when I can consider the Bible as a "history book"??

You are entitled to consider the bible whatever you wish. However, you are NOT entitled to claim in debate that it is a history book without being able to substantiate that claim. Christian scholars and theologians disagree with that claim.

You guys refer to at is a book on religious mythology, so are you saying that you are limiting my reference of the Bible to Hebrew Mythology or something, otherwise I cannot debate in the C&A sub-forum? Do I also have to refer to my God as an evil, cruel unloving dictator or I am 'out of here'?

Forum Rules and Guidelines, established and approved by the Christian site owner and administrator state clearly that the bible can NOT be used to prove anything true and is NOT considered any more authoritative than any other book.

Sorry Zzyzx, but I am neither your slave, nor one of your sheep

I own no slaves or sheep and have no use for either.

when it comes to my God and the use of the Bible. You may have been a big part in removing the Bible from schools, and prayer from schools, or may even be planning to kick me off this forum,

I prefer that you learn to debate within Forum Rules and Guidelines so you do not self-destruct as so many do by blatantly ignoring rules and guidelines. The Forum needs credible theistic debaters that can learn to present rational arguments in favor of their theistic position. Unfortunately those people are in short supply.

.. but you will never dictate when and where I can refer to the Bible, and 'what' I can refer to the Bible as.

Otseng, site owner and administrator, DOES determine what can and cannot be done on his site.

Notice that there are sub-forums set aside for debate or discussion that DOES consider the bible to be a valid source of truth. Those include Holy Huddle and TD&D. However, the C&A sub-forum (this one) is a level playing field in which NO theological viewpoint is given favorable treatment.

It appears as though many Christians are accustomed to having their position favored and competing views silenced or disallowed. That doesn't apply here and many cannot adjust to being "just another voice" rather than being given some special recognition by virtue of their religious beliefs.

It's no wonder none of you want to meet me in person,

Have you requested to meet Forum members in person and been declined? Do you really think that you are more capable or convincing in person than in print? If you have some personal need for such contact, I may be willing to meet you here in Arkansas to test your resolve.

you couldn't face me or look me straight in the eye with these kind of responses.

As with every other speculation you have attempted to make relating to Zzyzx, you are dead wrong. There is nothing that you could do in person that would limit my responses. If you propose that you could do so physically or through personal intimidation that is the biggest mistake you have made.

But as 'Zzyzx' you are safely hidden in a Forum separated from the other person by miles and miles of cables. here anything goes without seeing anyone.

In reasoned, honorable debate it is the conflict of ideas that matters NOT the personalities or the physical presence.

I have no need to hide from anyone and have no need to see opponents in debate because I respond to their written statements not their physical appearance.

On a different forum a Fundamentalist got so upset that he made direct personal threats to me. I asked how soon he could make the trip to Arkansas. He must have heard his mother calling him.

Like in Vegas ay? "What goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas."

That doesn't hold true for Las Vegas (and probably very rarely for anywhere else).


Now tell me how all the blustering has anything to do with Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

Even if the bible was permitted as proof of truth, it certainly isn't scientific, and isn't undeniable evidence of anything, much less a creator – it is just a book of stories by unidentified religion promoters who can't be shown to have known what and who they were talking about.

[arian]

.

Perhaps you would like to back up and demonstrate that you KNOW and can verify with credible evidence that the universe had a beginning.

so I demonstrated that in both religious science fiction (Big-bang theory) AND in the History book called the Bible the universe is said to have a beginning. And I said that; "If there is a beginning, it is not, nor can ever become Infinite. That finite cannot become infinite"

All you show is that there are CLAIMS that the universe had a beginning – some theories from scientific study and some tales from religious folklore (that sometimes masquerades as history). Neither has been demonstrated to be truthful and accurate.

Thanks Zzyzx.

OK, .. and you say this because? .... ?

Please refer back to my previous posts for more details regarding you point-blank rejections. Another example would be the summery of Zzyzx as I understand him:

"I look at the sky, but I don't look at the sky. If I do look into the sky all I see is pretty twinkling lights that I was told were stars and galaxies. That is sufficient for me, I don't ask where it all began or where it all ends, and I don't care what some scientists tell me, or what some Bible tells me, it means nothing to me, .. so prove to me that the universe is infinite, not that I care?"

To show you, or PROVE to you 'Infinite', I ask you to look out into the universe, out into space and ask: "What do I see?"
If you say 'Infinity, or infinite space filled with stars', ..

You seriously error when attempting to pontificate about what Zzyzx sees or says. In truth as I look into the night sky I see points of light that are identified by astronomers as stars and galaxies – and the moon which I can examine in some detail with my telescope (a 4" Celestron refractor).

I make absolutely NO speculations or conjectures about infinity (or about origin of life, or demons, or devils). Those things are of no importance or interest in my life and I do not pretend to have knowledge that I do not have. Perhaps it is a difficult concept for many Theists to grasp since they often seem to think that they KNOW about such things after reading ancient speculations / opinions / stories or listening to sermons about the same or having personal emotional or psychological episodes (or "visions" or hallucinations or whatever).

What? Are you saying you can see galaxies with a 4" Celestron? I can barely see the ring (not rings, but a ring) around the tiny bright speck called Saturn which is right here in our own tiny solar system with an 8", and you can see galaxies with a 4"?

How, .. and I do mean HOW do you know that what you are looking at is not some ancient speculations / opinions / stories of things happened billions of years ago from listening to sermons about some speck of whatever that Big-banged? Or from having personal emotional or psychological episodes (or "visions" or hallucinations or whatever)? How?

I'm serious my friend, since I have told you at least 500 times in debates that I am not a Theist, yet you still keep referring to me as a Theist. I even made a Post called: "My God I'm an atheist!" .. remember?

I have also asked that we keep religion out of this debate, and what do you keep doing, or what are your rejections of my scientific claims? That's right, not proof, and you even say that you are not even interested in any proof one way or another about things like infinity, the beginning of the universe etc. either about God, or Infinity, or whether there was a beginning to the universe or not? But you did create a Post on my claim that I can show undeniable scientific proof of our Creator.
Only it seems, .. you are not really interested in hearing about it because Zzyzx doesn't really care about God, gods, Creator, Infinity, origin of life, demon or devil, or if the universe had a beginning or not?

But then you will just say: "Zzyzx does not look out into space, so your detailed undeniable evidence is null, .. nothing but preaching that does not belong in the 'Christianity and Apologetics sub forum'.

Dead wrong speculation about Zzyzx again. I live in the country where night views of the sky are not obstructed by ambient light – and I own and use a telescope.

Everyone in this entire world 'looks into space', we don't need a telescope for that. Lovers lay in the grass on a beautiful clear-sky evening just staring at the stars, then there are those of us that look for some kind of answers to questions we have? And as I said, we don't have to be religious for that. Why do you insist on making science out to be about religion?

Here is people in general looking into the night sky: "Hmm, .. I wonder how this was made? Who made it?"

"Buzzz! .. you said 'who made it?', that's religious!"

"Maybe there is a being out there like us who created all the things that we didn't? Like a Creator for instance?"

"Buzzz, .. you mentioned 'Creator'! That is also religion!"

How about the astronomer who dedicates his entire life watching and documenting stars? He gets up every day at that exacts same time for months, even years to watch and document a speck of light with even tinier moons around it! Now tell me that's not a very religious hobby/job?

Does that mean that astronomy is a religion, .. that the astronomer is some religious priest with his religious practices worshiping some form of god or gods?

Without some basic ground rules, the word religion could be ascribed to anyone with a repetitious job, especially if he loves his job. It could be also used for people who create and worship god/gods in church, through repetitious prayer etc.

I know you know this. This is why you do everything possible, even to the point of being silly to stop me from answering your post. You know that if we define religion, my explanation of our Creator would be outside of religions that create gods, or the religious science that is dedicated in creating 'creators' like 'Evolution, Big bang'.

What I do NOT do is speculate about infinity, the origin of the universe, the beginning of life, and other such issues that are currently beyond human understanding (beyond human ability to demonstrate knowledge). Empty, unverifiable, indemonstrable claims of knowledge do not impress me at all – and do not fare well in debate (as you may have noticed).

"Infinity, the origin of the universe, the beginning of life" may be beyond your understanding, or the refusal thereof, but is definitely not mine. As I have demonstrated hundreds of times, including the true definition, and the existence of 'nothing'.

Speculation concerning the origin of the universe is meaningless to Zzyzx. What you speculate concerning the origin is less than meaningless

So what you are saying is that 'Undeniable scientific fact based on evidence' is meaningless to Zzyzx?

To what undeniable scientific fact do you refer?

My detailed and scientific fact about the 'originator, Creator' of the universe. You keep insisting to keep 'Creator/Originator' of the universe within your religious understanding. Anything outside of religion; "does not compute to Zzyzx".

So why the hell did you call me out on my claim to scientifically prove the existence of the Creator??

I often challenge claims of knowledge that are not substantiated. If you CLAIM to have undeniable scientific evidence of the creator, I (and Forum Rules) expect you to substantiate your claims.

Under YOUR religious guidelines, correct? Lol..

When you cannot do so that is "egg on your face" – meaning you have made a boast that you cannot fulfill. It is not uncommon for people to become emotional, personal and even abusive when their claims are challenged and they cannot rise to the challenge.

"Emotional, personal, abusive" .. you forgot, and; "totally irrational and unfair".

The bible may be regarded as a "history book" in church or in Christendom; however, it is NOT so regarded in debate here in the C&A Sub-forum. Those who wish to elevate the bible to history book status are welcome to do so in Holy Huddle or TD&D sub-forums.

Who are you to dictate where, how, and when I can consider the Bible as a "history book"??

You are entitled to consider the bible whatever you wish. However, you are NOT entitled to claim in debate that it is a history book without being able to substantiate that claim. Christian scholars and theologians disagree with that claim.

maybe the religious Christians and theologians who make a living peddling their gods disagree, but 'non-religious' honest scientists/archeologists don't. This is why I want to keep religion, which you religiously insist on keeping, .. OUT of this debate.

Why are you darn stuck on religion Zzyzx? Have you tried atheism yet? Because that would be a start. But not the religious cultic atheism, but the scientifically accepted fact that; created gods are not the Creator God!

You guys refer to at is a book on religious mythology, so are you saying that you are limiting my reference of the Bible to Hebrew Mythology or something, otherwise I cannot debate in the C&A sub-forum? Do I also have to refer to my God as an evil, cruel unloving dictator or I am 'out of here'?

Forum Rules and Guidelines, established and approved by the Christian site owner and administrator state clearly that the bible can NOT be used to prove anything true and is NOT considered any more authoritative than any other book.

Show me where I said that the Bible is true, and that I am revealing a Christian Creator, or the Christian religious view of the God in the Bible?

I said the Bible backs up my scientific observation of our Creator God. YOU are the one who keeps bringing the Christian religious scholars and their divined ideas into this. Unless this is also the Forums interpretation of 'civil debate'; twisting and turning what I say out of proportion, claiming things I didn't say nor mean!?

And what?
Say what? The Bible is no more authoritative than any other book when it comes to our Creator God? That when I scientifically prove the obvious existence of a Creator that I cannot refer to the Bible to point out more details about what and whom I am talking about?

So are you suggesting that you guys cannot refer to any Big-bang Evolutionary bible/books as some kind of authority on either the Big-bang theory, or Biological Evolution?

OK, that sounds like fun, I may even start a thread on: "Prove Undeniable Scientific Evidence on either the Big bang or biological Evolution, without using books either on the Big-bang or Evolution as any authority or findings in them as proof on any of these two subjects." .. since those books are no more authoritative then any other book (example; "Grimm's Fairy Tale Classics")

Sorry Zzyzx, but I am neither your slave, nor one of your sheep

I own no slaves or sheep and have no use for either.

You know well what I meant, that you chain and limit my freedom of speech within your religious views, and follow them because "everyone does" or is the popular thing in this New World Order. What I meant was this "Obey" mentality that is controlling humanity, .. it will never happen,and may God help me to keep it that way.

when it comes to my God and the use of the Bible. You may have been a big part in removing the Bible from schools, and prayer from schools, or may even be planning to kick me off this forum,

I prefer that you learn to debate within Forum Rules and Guidelines so you do not self-destruct as so many do by blatantly ignoring rules and guidelines. The Forum needs credible theistic debaters that can learn to present rational arguments in favor of their theistic position. Unfortunately those people are in short supply.

Sorry, but you will not force me to make 'rational arguments for' any religious theistic, or atheistic positions. I am not religious, how can I explain this to you? I am NOT a theist, nor am I here to prove the existence of some theistic-god/gods or any other created beings. I am NOT going to allow you to pull me into talking theology here, even if you do get to convince other Moderators to 'self-destruct' me unless I do.

I will not become a religious theist/atheist just to please you. Come on Zzyzx, be fair. You are now threatening me with 'self-destruction', just so I will heed to your version of Creator, which you say you have absolutely no use for!?

.. but you will never dictate when and where I can refer to the Bible, and 'what' I can refer to the Bible as.

Otseng, site owner and administrator, DOES determine what can and cannot be done on his site.

Notice that there are sub-forums set aside for debate or discussion that DOES consider the bible to be a valid source of truth. Those include Holy Huddle and TD&D. However, the C&A sub-forum (this one) is a level playing field in which NO theological viewpoint is given favorable treatment.

Is this fair that you keep pulling me into your "religion/theological/fairytale/mythical/Bible thumper/preaching trap, so you could convince Moderators whom I have a lot of respect for (whether they see things my way or not) to kick me off?

I don't think this Forum would stoop to such unfair and unjust levels. Just because you or some others here cannot accept NEW evidence because of religious upbringing, doesn't mean everyone, or the majority here don't. I have been here long enough to know.

Can we PLEASE get back on track to the OP? And please, as I asked multiple times of you, please leave 'religion' out of this debate. What you are doing is just not fair, and I have shown you this over and over again. I say "I'm gay today" You say; "why are you a homosexual to day?". This is not fair debate.

It appears as though many Christians are accustomed to having their position favored and competing views silenced or disallowed. That doesn't apply here and many cannot adjust to being "just another voice" rather than being given some special recognition by virtue of their religious beliefs.

There you go again... my Lord. "I AM NOT RELIGIOUS OR AM DEBATING THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION'S God/gods or religious theistic beliefs in some supernatural beings who divine to their diviners about any theistic gods." I honestly don't understand why are you keep doing this?

Again, ... how many times is this now?
I am here to 'reveal by Undeniable Scientific Evidence' our Creator.
Not gods created by the tens of thousands of religions out there.

Not the created, but the Creator.

Not 'one from the many finite' gods out there, but the INFINITE, one and only God, the 'Creator'.

Thank you.

It's no wonder none of you want to meet me in person,

Have you requested to meet Forum members in person and been declined?

Yes sir, .. many times with e-mail, home address, and phone number.

Do you really think that you are more capable or convincing in person than in print? If you have some personal need for such contact, I may be willing to meet you here in Arkansas to test your resolve.

Please don't be teasing me buddy!? That would be, ... AWESOME DUDE, .. as my kids would say.
Of course, why, don't you agree that 'in-person' would be much, much more meaningful, or humane then referring to someone for years only as 'arian'? ESPECIALLY if Otseng to whom I am so grateful for creating this sight, and those I had some really deep disagreements with like; McCulloch, DI, Clownboat, and equally the rest too many to mention here, and of course how could we leave out Joey Knothead? It is only in-person we can see the true genuineness of a person, whether we agree on subjects or not, wouldn't you agree?

And I don't mean a courtroom style meeting either, but as I have suggested, a friendly, get to know each other, human encounter where we can eat, drink and laugh. Not just meet with you Zzyzx, but it would be an honor to meet everyone here that could afford to do this, it would be well worth the sacrifice (since I'm sure we're all just surviving) everyone that you and me have debated with these few years. I mean I would be honored to meet you, even if you just want to shake hands and tell me; "OK, we met, now get lost!" lol

you couldn't face me or look me straight in the eye with these kind of responses.

As with every other speculation you have attempted to make relating to Zzyzx, you are dead wrong. There is nothing that you could do in person that would limit my responses. If you propose that you could do so physically or through personal intimidation that is the biggest mistake you have made.

See, this is exactly what I mean. In person you could right away tell if I was trying to get my message across by intimidation, right? Physical threat is NOT, or never has been one of my traits, just ask my kids, especially about such critically important debates as we have here. Again I believe you see me in the wrong light because we only have our debates to judge by. I am NOT religious. I am NOT advertising my church, or some Christian denomination, or other religion.

When I say I am tough, it is because I have taken a lot of beatings in my life.
When I say I am fearless, it is because I say; "What the hell, after what I have been through, what else is there to fear? I truly believe that when my time comes, it will be exactly, not one minute before, nor a minute later then when My God says or allows. This doesn't mean I don't hate turbulence, or needles. .. lol.

If I was religious, yes I would understand why you would think 'intimidation'. And if I was advertising some church, then I would most likely (from what I've seen) use excessive kindness and offer you entertainment, jokes, promises of great wealth etc. which I'm sure you hate as well.

This is why it is so much more powerful to talk/debate in person. This is exactly why God used His Prophets and even His Son to personally talk to us. He can't do it in person-person so He uses Angels in physical form, or His Son to personally give His message. Actually I can see just from these last few debates why you would think this, it does seem, and I'm sure to others also, that in person we would be at each others throats, lol.

Not only that, but imagine how different and more meaningful, and more respectful our debates would be after we spend some time getting to know each other? Matter of fact I am already kind of feeling guilty for the tone in my responses above. I'll have to go and re read it, not that I would change anything, maybe only the tone.

Once as friends that meet or even have met, we wouldn't have to worry about telling each other off for being rude, don't you think? Like this, it feels like i'm debating the computer, but once we meet, we see that person when we debate.

Hey, I met my wife through mail-order brides, and I can attest to that that she is not the person I wrote to, nor the pictures I married. Yea a picture is like a thousand words, .. which I made up with my mind, "in my dreams" as they say.

Like our debates, I'm sure that even you probably said a few times to yourself: "Man this arian, what a little hardheaded asshole!" lol.

But as 'Zzyzx' you are safely hidden in a Forum separated from the other person by miles and miles of cables. here anything goes without seeing anyone.

In reasoned, honorable debate it is the conflict of ideas that matters NOT the personalities or the physical presence.

I have no need to hide from anyone and have no need to see opponents in debate because I respond to their written statements not their physical appearance.

Well you are special then. But for now I will be the judge of that once after you see me and I see that you don't laugh.

On a different forum a Fundamentalist got so upset that he made direct personal threats to me. I asked how soon he could make the trip to Arkansas. He must have heard his mother calling him.

Ha, ha, ha, .. yea I can see that. I also want you to know I make mistakes, sometimes even hurt people unintentionally (I don't mean physically). Until that is cleared up between us, I feel very uncomfortable in that persons presence. I find it extremely difficult to look someone in the eyes that I know I hurt in some way, or if that person thinks I hurt him/her. For this reason I feel the urgency to make things right.

But it seems, or I feel that I am not making myself clear here. Maybe because I know I had very little education, and struggle to express myself, especially with the things God has revealed to me. (Of course I don't expect you to believe in God just because I do, and that I believe it was His revelation) There is just too much evil in the world, too many evil people with evil intentions that have ruined it for everyone.

Like in Vegas ay? "What goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas."

That doesn't hold true for Las Vegas (and probably very rarely for anywhere else).

Well, ... yea you're right, it doesn't. We have texting now, and either the wife or the husband after a while reads the others texts, .. lol "YOU DID WHAT?"

Now tell me how all the blustering has anything to do with Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

Even if the bible was permitted as proof of truth, it certainly isn't scientific, and isn't undeniable evidence of anything, much less a creator – it is just a book of stories by unidentified religion promoters who can't be shown to have known what and who they were talking about.

Again my friend, I am NOT talking about the Bible creator or that I can prove Bible God scientifically. The Bible is specific that "No one can see God, nor can God be seen". What I can show you is the Creator of all things, including influence men to write down things, and explain to man that He has SOLE influence/say so as to the when, where and how on all these things, except on our free will. This 'God' I understand as THE Creator is THE Creator whether we had the Bible or not. Matter of fact, take a good look at the Bible (little books), they have been lost for a long time, found in caves, in the dirt, pieces here and pieces there, correct?

If that was ACTUALLY 'Gods Word', you think God would let it be trampled upon by men, .. lost in the sands of time? No my friend, Gods Word is not tarnished or gets filthy by men sins and negligence. You can't dirty Gods Word, but remains as pure and clean as the day He spoke it.

"All things shall pass away, but my Word abides forever" and no man, no matter how evil or how far they go away from God and try to pervert it as the snake did with Eve, it remains forever, in its purest form.

God speaks through ALL His creation including us men, and just because we deny to hear Him (because of sin) doesn't mean it is lost. We are lost, so we have to go out and search our way back, through the forest of all these man-made religions, especially all them that were created using the Bible.

Religions think that now that they put together the little books, they have God in their pockets. "Yep, we have Bible God right here, come see He is here!" or "Come see He is out here in the desert!"
Uh hum, .. the JW's have them their way, the Mormo worshippers have Him theirs, everyone who buys or gets a Bible think that now they own God. "A way for them to make money mostly"

Look, .. the Christians present to us what, .. about 38,000 slightly different versions of God, right? What do they call each and every one of those gods? Bible God right?

Now I'm sure I may have slipped back into that indoctrinated mindset more than a few times, but that was a mistake which I believe I have corrected many times.

Honestly Zzyzx, I was so happy that you asked me to present a scientifically verifiable 'Creator', which I don't know how or why God revealed to me one who is one of the most unschooled around, but He did.

I believe it was my stubborn hard headedness for one, because I watch and listen, and when I hear or see injustice I will pursue it until God puts a wall I can't climb in front of me. If it's by Satan, I will climb it even if it kills me, so I guess God says enough, I guess when it's for no good use anyways.

But the only way I can do this is if we agree on some ground rules first, it is to rinse out the flaws from the actual words and their meanings like for example; homosexuality from the word gay. Otherwise we'll just continue banging our heads, and end up insulting each other.

Creator first, once we establish the true meaning of Creator apart from the 'created', then we can go on to specifics as to who He is, Why were we created etc. Again, I will never use the Bible as the source of proof to what I say, but just supporting evidence because it makes sense. If Buddha said something to support the idea and the existence of 'Creator', then I will use that. God IS, and there should be supporting evidence all over the place, on the Earth, in space, in the planets, stars, galaxies, .. everywhere, right?

There should also be evidence of a Devil, demons, people who promote evil, or who intentionally corrupt good.

But "what is truth?" that too I can answer AFTER we agree on my Undeniable Scientific Evidence of Creator.

The Bible says: "Seek and you shall find, knock and it will be opened unto you!", I don't just read that and make excuses and cut out words like Christians do and say regarding knowing God; "Well, no one can fully know God!"

Really? Then what the hell they go to church for 30 plus years or more? Not to actually find God, or to KNOW Him since they believe he cannot be fathomed?

You see the difference between what I tell you and religion? I demand to know the God before I worship Him. If Jesus was the Word of God (that's what I heard people say) and said that we can search and find God since He is not far from any of us, then I expect to find Him, or the Bible is really just full of mythical stories like you say. We are to look everywhere, everywhere we can, books, movies, aps (ok, maybe that's to much) especially science and observing the world and the people around us. I heard somewhere that we were created in Gods image, OK, so I go and investigate that!

Thanks again my friend, as my daughter would text: "BFF". The first time I seen that in one of her texts, I honestly started to chew her out, until she cleared up my perverted mind. "Best Friend Forever dad, .. gosh, Really, Wow!!"

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 45 by arian]

Speculation concerning the origin of the universe is meaningless to Zzyzx. What you speculate concerning the origin is less than meaningless

So what you are saying is that 'Undeniable scientific fact based on evidence' is meaningless to Zzyzx?

To what undeniable scientific fact do you refer?

My detailed and scientific fact about the 'originator, Creator' of the universe.

This thread was started so you could present your Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

So far there has been a flurry of words, vague pontifications, personal comments to Zzyzx and absolutely nothing that could be regarded as undeniable or scientific or as evidence of a creator. – nothing more than blowing smoke.

Do you have SOMETHING to present? Readers might be interested.

. . . . the summery of Zzyzx as I understand him:

"I look at the sky, but I don't look at the sky. If I do look into the sky all I see is pretty twinkling lights that I was told were stars and galaxies. That is sufficient for me, I don't ask where it all began or where it all ends, and I don't care what some scientists tell me, or what some Bible tells me, it means nothing to me, .. so prove to me that the universe is infinite, not that I care?"

Since your attempt to "understand" Zzyzx is typical of your understanding of other things a strong warp is not surprising.

I trust that readers understand what I have actually said far better than you do.

To show you, or PROVE to you 'Infinite', I ask you to look out into the universe, out into space and ask: "What do I see?"
If you say 'Infinity, or infinite space filled with stars', ..

You seriously error when attempting to pontificate about what Zzyzx sees or says. In truth as I look into the night sky I see points of light that are identified by astronomers as stars and galaxies – and the moon which I can examine in some detail with my telescope (a 4" Celestron refractor).

I make absolutely NO speculations or conjectures about infinity (or about origin of life, or demons, or devils). Those things are of no importance or interest in my life and I do not pretend to have knowledge that I do not have. Perhaps it is a difficult concept for many Theists to grasp since they often seem to think that they KNOW about such things after reading ancient speculations / opinions / stories or listening to sermons about the same or having personal emotional or psychological episodes (or "visions" or hallucinations or whatever).

What? Are you saying you can see galaxies with a 4" Celestron?

What part of "and the MOON which I can examine in some detail with my telescope" is difficult to understand?

I can barely see the ring (not rings, but a ring) around the tiny bright speck called Saturn which is right here in our own tiny solar system with an 8", and you can see galaxies with a 4"?

Perhaps reading comprehension is required to understand my posts.

How, .. and I do mean HOW do you know that what you are looking at is not some ancient speculations / opinions / stories of things happened billions of years ago from listening to sermons about some speck of whatever that Big-banged? Or from having personal emotional or psychological episodes (or "visions" or hallucinations or whatever)? How?

With some measure of reading comprehension a person can understand that I make no claim to know the identity or origin of points of light in the night sky – but recognize that astronomers identify them as stars and galaxies. I also do not pontificate or pretend to know about origin of the universe or its contents.

Those who CLAIM such knowledge are free to demonstrate that they know what they are talking about – but seem to lack that ability.

I'm serious my friend, since I have told you at least 500 times in debates that I am not a Theist,

Five hundred times? Are you prone to exaggeration?

yet you still keep referring to me as a Theist.

I do not keep track of members' theological position, but respond to what is written.

I even made a Post called: "My God I'm an atheist!" .. remember?

No I do not remember that post – and do not attempt to retain in memory what members have said.

I have also asked that we keep religion out of this debate,

How, exactly, do you propose to "keep religion out of this debate" when the topic is Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

Is the proposed "creator" not a "god" or a supernatural entity?

and what do you keep doing, or what are your rejections of my scientific claims?

What "scientific claims" exactly of yours have I rejected – verbatim quote – URL?

That's right, not proof, and you even say that you are not even interested in any proof one way or another about things like infinity, the beginning of the universe etc. either about God, or Infinity, or whether there was a beginning to the universe or not?

I would be MOST interested in PROOF regarding infinity, origin of the universe, "God", etc.

However, I have encountered no evidence, let alone proof, that anyone knows about such things beyond imagination, opinion, conjecture, assumption, etc. Therefore, I do not debate such topics

But you did create a Post on my claim that I can show undeniable scientific proof of our Creator.

That is correct. You made a claim and I opened this thread to challenge that claim.

Only it seems, .. you are not really interested in hearing about it because Zzyzx doesn't really care about God, gods, Creator, Infinity, origin of life, demon or devil, or if the universe had a beginning or not?

CORRECTION: My objective in opening this thread was to see if you could provide the Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator" that you claim to possess. The results so far seem to indicate that you made a claim that you cannot support. Care to try actually presenting some "undeniable and scientific evidence?"

But then you will just say: "Zzyzx does not look out into space, so your detailed undeniable evidence is null, .. nothing but preaching that does not belong in the 'Christianity and Apologetics sub forum'.

Dead wrong speculation about Zzyzx again. I live in the country where night views of the sky are not obstructed by ambient light – and I own and use a telescope.

Everyone in this entire world 'looks into space', we don't need a telescope for that. Lovers lay in the grass on a beautiful clear-sky evening just staring at the stars, then there are those of us that look for some kind of answers to questions we have? And as I said, we don't have to be religious for that. Why do you insist on making science out to be about religion?

Your point?

How about the astronomer who dedicates his entire life watching and documenting stars? He gets up every day at that exacts same time for months, even years to watch and document a speck of light with even tinier moons around it! Now tell me that's not a very religious hobby/job?

Classifying an interest in astronomy as "religious" is demeaning of both astronomy and religion.

Without some basic ground rules, the word religion could be ascribed to anyone with a repetitious job, especially if he loves his job. It could be also used for people who create and worship god/gods in church, through repetitious prayer etc.

Many religionists attempt to extend definitions of "religion", "faith" and "belief" widely enough to be able to claim that "everybody does it."

I know you know this. This is why you do everything possible, even to the point of being silly to stop me from answering your post.

Dead wrong again. I encourage you to actually answer my posts, challenges, questions rather than dancing around issues and focusing upon me personally rather than upon issues to be discussed.

You know that if we define religion, my explanation of our Creator would be outside of religions that create gods, or the religious science that is dedicated in creating 'creators' like 'Evolution, Big bang'.

You are fee to offer your definition of religion and to describe your concept of a "creator."

What I do NOT do is speculate about infinity, the origin of the universe, the beginning of life, and other such issues that are currently beyond human understanding (beyond human ability to demonstrate knowledge). Empty, unverifiable, indemonstrable claims of knowledge do not impress me at all – and do not fare well in debate (as you may have noticed).

"Infinity, the origin of the universe, the beginning of life" may be beyond your understanding, or the refusal thereof, but is definitely not mine. As I have demonstrated hundreds of times, including the true definition, and the existence of 'nothing'.

You should share your understanding of those matters with scholars who would welcome such knowledge.

Perhaps a major difference between us is that I acknowledge not knowing the origin of the universe, the beginning of life and infinity – while you seem to be claiming to understand such things.

Yes, I too have read various "explanations" of such things by those who claim to know through religion, science, or their own imagination. However, their evidence of knowledge is weak to non-existent. What you have demonstrated so far is the latter.

Believing one's own thinking (or that of someone else) is VERY different from possessing verifiable knowledge. When people make such claims I ask why I should take them seriously.

You keep insisting to keep 'Creator/Originator' of the universe within your religious understanding. Anything outside of religion; "does not compute to Zzyzx".

Correction: I keep asking for the Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator that you claim to possess. Since you seem unable to do so all you do is dance.

So why the hell did you call me out on my claim to scientifically prove the existence of the Creator??

I often challenge claims of knowledge that are not substantiated. If you CLAIM to have undeniable scientific evidence of the creator, I (and Forum Rules) expect you to substantiate your claims.

Under YOUR religious guidelines, correct? Lol..

Correction: Under Forum Rules and Guidelines.

You may start whenever you feel competent.

I also "call you out" on – "I am not a Theist and am not religious but I believe in God"

The bible may be regarded as a "history book" in church or in Christendom; however, it is NOT so regarded in debate here in the C&A Sub-forum. Those who wish to elevate the bible to history book status are welcome to do so in Holy Huddle or TD&D sub-forums.

Who are you to dictate where, how, and when I can consider the Bible as a "history book"??

You are entitled to consider the bible whatever you wish. However, you are NOT entitled to claim in debate that it is a history book without being able to substantiate that claim. Christian scholars and theologians disagree with that claim.

maybe the religious Christians and theologians who make a living peddling their gods disagree, but 'non-religious' honest scientists/archeologists don't. This is why I want to keep religion, which you religiously insist on keeping, .. OUT of this debate.

Okay, show non-religious verification that the bible is a history book.

Why are you darn stuck on religion Zzyzx?

Let's see, we are debating on a religious debate site, you claim to have evidence of a creator, AND you wonder why religion is part of the debate?

Have you tried atheism yet?

I have investigated Atheism as well as Theism – and chose to not associate with either. Instead, I consider ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" may exist and ANY of the tens of thousands of religions may possess valid information. However, I have not encountered evidence beyond what can be attributed to imagination, opinion, conjecture, testimonial, and unverified claims (such as yours).

Because that would be a start. But not the religious cultic atheism, but the scientifically accepted fact that; created gods are not the Creator God!

Which "gods" are "creator gods" and which are "created gods" AND how can anyone interested verify which is which?

You guys refer to at is a book on religious mythology, so are you saying that you are limiting my reference of the Bible to Hebrew Mythology or something, otherwise I cannot debate in the C&A sub-forum? Do I also have to refer to my God as an evil, cruel unloving dictator or I am 'out of here'?

Forum Rules and Guidelines, established and approved by the Christian site owner and administrator state clearly that the bible can NOT be used to prove anything true and is NOT considered any more authoritative than any other book.

Show me where I said that the Bible is true, and that I am revealing a Christian Creator, or the Christian religious view of the God in the Bible?

I said the Bible backs up my scientific observation of our Creator God.

Whether the bible "backs up your 'scientific observation' or not is immaterial since the bible cannot be used as proof of truth. If you need to cite the bible as proof, you should confine your posts to Holy Huddle or TD&D sub-forums.

YOU are the one who keeps bringing the Christian religious scholars and their divined ideas into this. Unless this is also the Forums interpretation of 'civil debate'; twisting and turning what I say out of proportion, claiming things I didn't say nor mean!?

Let's see . . . . . you bring up the bible and wonder why I refer to religious scholars.

And what?
Say what? The Bible is no more authoritative than any other book when it comes to our Creator God? That when I scientifically prove the obvious existence of a Creator that I cannot refer to the Bible to point out more details about what and whom I am talking about?

Whenever you begin to ATTEMPT to "scientifically prove the obvious existence of a creator" the bible still cannot be used as proof of truth.

So are you suggesting that you guys cannot refer to any Big-bang Evolutionary bible/books as some kind of authority on either the Big-bang theory, or Biological Evolution?

You guys? To whom are you speaking?

I do not promote or defend Big Bang theories (or any other) of the origin of the universe. Do many straw men attempts?

Sorry Zzyzx, but I am neither your slave, nor one of your sheep

I own no slaves or sheep and have no use for either.

You know well what I meant, that you chain and limit my freedom of speech within your religious views,

The limitations upon your "freedom of speech" are set in this website by Forum Rules and Guidelines established by the Christian site owner / Administrator. Those who do not wish to abide by his rules and guidelines are welcome to go elsewhere – on their own accord or otherwise.

and follow them because "everyone does" or is the popular thing in this New World Order. What I meant was this "Obey" mentality that is controlling humanity, .. it will never happen,and may God help me to keep it that way.

Let's see . . . . someone who rejects being referred to as religious is asking for help from "God" . . . . Hmmmm.

when it comes to my God and the use of the Bible. You may have been a big part in removing the Bible from schools, and prayer from schools, or may even be planning to kick me off this forum,

I prefer that you learn to debate within Forum Rules and Guidelines so you do not self-destruct as so many do by blatantly ignoring rules and guidelines. The Forum needs credible theistic debaters that can learn to present rational arguments in favor of their theistic position. Unfortunately those people are in short supply.

Sorry, but you will not force me to make 'rational arguments for' any religious theistic, or atheistic positions. I am not religious, how can I explain this to you?

You could start by avoiding obvious contradictions such as the one pointed out above.

I am NOT a theist, nor am I here to prove the existence of some theistic-god/gods or any other created beings. I am NOT going to allow you to pull me into talking theology here, even if you do get to convince other Moderators to 'self-destruct' me unless I do.

Why not just present Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator for all to consider?

I venture a guess that you realize that you cannot do so – and are attempting to avoid admitting so.

I will not become a religious theist/atheist just to please you. Come on Zzyzx, be fair. You are now threatening me with 'self-destruction',

I make no threats. If you self-destruct YOU do so by your own actions. Even if I did wish to eliminate you (which I do not because you do more damage to creator myths than a squad of opponents could do deliberately), I have only one vote in eight.

just so I will heed to your version of Creator, which you say you have absolutely no use for!?

I have no version of a creator – and nothing to sell in that regard.

.. but you will never dictate when and where I can refer to the Bible, and 'what' I can refer to the Bible as.

Otseng, site owner and administrator, DOES determine what can and cannot be done on his site.

Notice that there are sub-forums set aside for debate or discussion that DOES consider the bible to be a valid source of truth. Those include Holy Huddle and TD&D. However, the C&A sub-forum (this one) is a level playing field in which NO theological viewpoint is given favorable treatment.

Is this fair that you keep pulling me into your "religion/theological/fairytale/mythical/Bible thumper/preaching trap, so you could convince Moderators whom I have a lot of respect for (whether they see things my way or not) to kick me off?

Again, I prefer that you learn to debate honorably and to abide by Forum Rules and Guidelines (rather than attempting to demean them and the moderating team).

I don't think this Forum would stoop to such unfair and unjust levels.

That is correct. Admin and Moderators go to great effort to be fair with all and to show no favoritism to any point of view. There is a balance of viewpoints in both Admin and Moderators.

Just because you or some others here cannot accept NEW evidence because of religious upbringing, doesn't mean everyone, or the majority here don't. I have been here long enough to know.

It is not possible to accept "new evidence" that has not been presented.

When will you start?

Can we PLEASE get back on track to the OP? And please, as I asked multiple times of you, please leave 'religion' out of this debate. What you are doing is just not fair, and I have shown you this over and over again. I say "I'm gay today" You say; "why are you a homosexual to day?". This is not fair debate.

Okay – go ahead and present Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator

I am here to 'reveal by Undeniable Scientific Evidence' our Creator.

When do you intend to start presenting evidence?

It's no wonder none of you want to meet me in person,

Have you requested to meet Forum members in person and been declined?

Yes sir, .. many times with e-mail, home address, and phone number.

Since you were making the request for in-person meeting, did you arrange to travel to their location?

Do you really think that you are more capable or convincing in person than in print? If you have some personal need for such contact, I may be willing to meet you here in Arkansas to test your resolve.

Please don't be teasing me buddy!? That would be, ... AWESOME DUDE, ..

When do you propose to arrive?

Of course, why, don't you agree that 'in-person' would be much, much more meaningful,

A face-to-face meeting could be interesting.

It is only in-person we can see the true genuineness of a person, whether we agree on subjects or not, wouldn't you agree?

Personal meeting does not guarantee seeing "true genuineness of a person" though it may be more informative than electronic communication.

And I don't mean a courtroom style meeting either, but as I have suggested, a friendly, get to know each other, human encounter where we can eat, drink and laugh.

That could be pleasant and productive. However, is it practical or realistic? Who among us is likely to be willing to travel in order to meet? I, frankly, am not.

Not just meet with you Zzyzx, but it would be an honor to meet everyone here that could afford to do this, it would be well worth the sacrifice (since I'm sure we're all just surviving) everyone that you and me have debated with these few years. I mean I would be honored to meet you, even if you just want to shake hands and tell me; "OK, we met, now get lost!"

That is a nice pipe dream. I have met a couple forum members in person – in Arkansas.

you couldn't face me or look me straight in the eye with these kind of responses.

As with every other speculation you have attempted to make relating to Zzyzx, you are dead wrong. There is nothing that you could do in person that would limit my responses. If you propose that you could do so physically or through personal intimidation that is the biggest mistake you have made.

See, this is exactly what I mean. In person you could right away tell if I was trying to get my message across by intimidation, right?

Oh, you have a message?

When I say I am tough, it is because I have taken a lot of beatings in my life.

Perhaps the truly tough have not taken a lot of beatings.

When I say I am fearless, it is because I say; "What the hell, after what I have been through, what else is there to fear? I truly believe that when my time comes, it will be exactly, not one minute before, nor a minute later then when My God says or allows. This doesn't mean I don't hate turbulence, or needles. ..

After that statement about "your god" tell me again that you are not religious. .

This is why it is so much more powerful to talk/debate in person.

I prophesy that you would fare no better in person than you do in this thread.

This is exactly why God used His Prophets and even His Son to personally talk to us. He can't do it in person-person so He uses Angels in physical form, or His Son to personally give His message. Actually I can see just from these last few debates why you would think this, it does seem, and I'm sure to others also, that in person we would be at each others throats, lol.

Let's see . . . . . you are not religious, right?

Not only that, but imagine how different and more meaningful, and more respectful our debates would be after we spend some time getting to know each other? Matter of fact I am already kind of feeling guilty for the tone in my responses above. I'll have to go and re read it, not that I would change anything, maybe only the tone.

The only "guilt" you should feel is for making a boast about Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator that you cannot produce.

Once as friends that meet or even have met, we wouldn't have to worry about telling each other off for being rude, don't you think? Like this, it feels like i'm debating the computer, but once we meet, we see that person when we debate.

If you are uncomfortable debating in this venue perhaps you shouldn't try

Hey, I met my wife through mail-order brides, and I can attest to that that she is not the person I wrote to, nor the pictures I married. Yea a picture is like a thousand words, .. which I made up with my mind, "in my dreams" as they say.

If a woman with whom I corresponded was not true to what she wrote and if her photos were not truly representative of her I would consider her a phony not worthy of my interest. In fact, I have met several women after corresponding – who misrepresented themselves. The first in-person meeting was the last. I dislike phonies. Some adhere to different standards and many do not seem concerned with integrity.

Like our debates, I'm sure that even you probably said a few times to yourself: "Man this arian, what a little hardheaded asshole!" lol.

Wrong again. I regard you as a person who fails to "walk the talk" – fails to produce or support what they claim.

But as 'Zzyzx' you are safely hidden in a Forum separated from the other person by miles and miles of cables. here anything goes without seeing anyone.

In reasoned, honorable debate it is the conflict of ideas that matters NOT the personalities or the physical presence.

I have no need to hide from anyone and have no need to see opponents in debate because I respond to their written statements not their physical appearance.

Well you are special then. But for now I will be the judge of that once after you see me and I see that you don't laugh.

Are you planning a trip to Arkansas?

Of course I don't expect you to believe in God just because I do,

Let's see, you believe in God but you are not religious . . . . sure . . . . that seems like a rational statement – or does it?

I wonder what readers think about such statements?

and that I believe it was His revelation) There is just too much evil in the world, too many evil people with evil intentions that have ruined it for everyone.

How did you come by your (non-religious) understanding of "God's" intentions or revelations?

Now tell me how all the blustering has anything to do with Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator.

Even if the bible was permitted as proof of truth, it certainly isn't scientific, and isn't undeniable evidence of anything, much less a creator – it is just a book of stories by unidentified religion promoters who can't be shown to have known what and who they were talking about.

Again my friend, I am NOT talking about the Bible creator or that I can prove Bible God scientifically. The Bible is specific that "No one can see God, nor can God be seen".

You have claimed repeatedly that you can prove the bible god scientifically. However, you have yet to offer even a shred of scientific evidence.

What I can show you is the Creator of all things, including influence men to write down things, and explain to man that He has SOLE influence/say so as to the when, where and how on all these things, except on our free will. This 'God' I understand as THE Creator is THE Creator whether we had the Bible or not. Matter of fact, take a good look at the Bible (little books), they have been lost for a long time, found in caves, in the dirt, pieces here and pieces there, correct?

You are certainly welcome to attempt to show everyone that you KNOW about a "creator" of any kind. When will you start?

If that was ACTUALLY 'Gods Word', you think God would let it be trampled upon by men, .. lost in the sands of time?

I do not pretend to know what "gods" might do or not do. I leave that speculation to religionists (and those who claim to know such things without admitting to being religious).

Honestly Zzyzx, I was so happy that you asked me to present a scientifically verifiable 'Creator', which I don't know how or why God revealed to me one who is one of the most unschooled around, but He did.

A few paragraphs ago you seemed a bit irritated that I had "called you out."

Perhaps "god" chose the wrong person because you have yet to present anything even remotely resembling Undeniable and Scientific Evidence of THE Creator

But the only way I can do this is if we agree on some ground rules first, it is to rinse out the flaws from the actual words and their meanings like for example; homosexuality from the word gay. Otherwise we'll just continue banging our heads, and end up insulting each other.

The "ground rules" are Forum Rules and Guidelines. If you cannot debate within those rules and guidelines you have a big problem. If you prefer in-person debate that is unlikely to be found here.

Creator first, once we establish the true meaning of Creator apart from the 'created', then we can go on to specifics as to who He is, Why were we created etc. Again, I will never use the Bible as the source of proof to what I say, but just supporting evidence because it makes sense. If Buddha said something to support the idea and the existence of 'Creator', then I will use that. God IS, and there should be supporting evidence all over the place, on the Earth, in space, in the planets, stars, galaxies, .. everywhere, right?

Present your "evidence" for all to consider.

There should also be evidence of a Devil, demons, people who promote evil, or who intentionally corrupt good.

But "what is truth?" that too I can answer AFTER we agree on my Undeniable Scientific Evidence of Creator.

FIRST you have to present "undeniable scientific evidence of a creator"

You see the difference between what I tell you and religion? I demand to know the God before I worship Him.

That sounds very much like other religionists' statements.

[Suzy]

From Post 4:

If blind faith was good scientific evidence then all us atheists would be……….. fill in the blank with your own chosen F word!

Flabbergasted.

My word was a bit more rude and has something to do with reproduction.

[arian]

[Replying to post 46 by Zzyzx]

Because that would be a start. But not the religious cultic atheism, but the scientifically accepted fact that; created gods are not the Creator God!

Which "gods" are "creator gods" and which are "created gods" AND how can anyone interested verify which is which?

And this sums up your entire response (post 46) to me, as the rest of them previous to this. Twisting and turning all my clear responses into mush.

Where did I ever refer to our Creator as "creator gods"? How many posts have I posted that explains the difference between Creator and the created?

Look again, I said; "created gods are not the Creator God"

God, no 's' at the end as in gods. But so you can show your seeming almighty power in debate, you continue mocking me and everything I say, and yes I'm sure all your "let the readers decide" so called atheist friends will back you up.

This poster mocks me, and yes this impersonal responder to my debates identified by the letters "Zzyzx" is mocking me, our Creator and God because he can. In the fashion of The Snake, also called the Devil who deceived Eve with the twisting of words, this impersonal responder by the letters "Zzyzx" follows in his very footsteps.

Let God be the judge of this impersonal responder/mocker identified as 'Zzyzx', and may 'He who IS' reward him and his team of debaters accordingly.

Now everyone can see the debater you (plural) really are. Aaahh.. is that a 'personal remark' Zzyzx? Well so is when I get a warning on this forum. But of course you and your 'team' are protected, you can mock and make fun of anyone's post you choose, but would never be regarded as 'personal remarks' from you.

tell me, why are you so scared team Zzyzx? What is so scary about me revealing God our Creator to you? I can only think of one thing, "Because you no longer have an excuse not to believe'. Debater arian has spoken the truth, and because you are unable to degrade it, even by resorting to every religious atheistic debating trick in the book, the undeniable scientific evidence of our Creator stands. And you and your team will just have to live with that until we all see Him, our Lord and Savior Jesus coming with power and might to judge the living and the dead. And no demonic symbol or tattoo can hide anyone from His presence.

So no matter what happens here Zzyzx, we will have ONE more debate on 'That Day of our Lord', where on your knees, you can use every trick you have accumulated in your entire life, and present your evidence that God, and His Son Jesus Christ 'do not exist'.

I ask God, in the name of Jesus Christ to be personally present when you present your case.

[otseng]

This poster mocks me, and yes this impersonal responder to my debates identified by the letters "Zzyzx" is mocking me, our Creator and God because he can. In the fashion of The Snake, also called the Devil who deceived Eve with the twisting of words, this impersonal responder by the letters "Zzyzx" follows in his very footsteps.

Let God be the judge of this impersonal responder/mocker identified as 'Zzyzx', and may 'He who IS' reward him and his team of debaters accordingly.

Now everyone can see the debater you (plural) really are. Aaahh.. is that a 'personal remark' Zzyzx? Well so is when I get a warning on this forum. But of course you and your 'team' are protected, you can mock and make fun of anyone's post you choose, but would never be regarded as 'personal remarks' from you.

tell me, why are you so scared team Zzyzx? What is so scary about me revealing God our Creator to you? I can only think of one thing, "Because you no longer have an excuse not to believe'. Debater arian has spoken the truth, and because you are unable to degrade it, even by resorting to every religious atheistic debating trick in the book, the undeniable scientific evidence of our Creator stands. And you and your team will just have to live with that until we all see Him, our Lord and Savior Jesus coming with power and might to judge the living and the dead. And no demonic symbol or tattoo can hide anyone from His presence.

So no matter what happens here Zzyzx, we will have ONE more debate on 'That Day of our Lord', where on your knees, you can use every trick you have accumulated in your entire life, and present your evidence that God, and His Son Jesus Christ 'do not exist'.

I ask God, in the name of Jesus Christ to be personally present when you present your case.

Moderator Warning


These would be considered personal comments and preaching. Please do not post things like this. Just attack arguments, not the poster.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.