Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[SiNcE_1985]

.

I trust now you will stop falsely accusing me of being a "secret god believer", which is the ONLY reason I repeated some of my reasons for attending this forum to you (again).

Not so fast.

None of your "reasons" justifies a life-long, full-throttle devotion and obsession with a religion of which you find ridiculous to believe in.

Nice try, but I ain't buying it.

Of course it can.

Blank statement.

I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician, but I'll do my best. It is because of 1) non-linear time, 2) superstacks, and 3) potential infinites.

1) Our understanding of time breaks down at the very beginning of the "universe", (such as at the "Big Bang"). Outside of standard linear flow, the concept of a "preceding hour" loses its meaning, essentially dissolving the paradox entirely.

Im glad you admit that the universe had a beginning.

Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.

So, what could give the universe (space, time, energy, matter; STEM) it's beginning?

Anything composed of STEM is disqualified as a viable answer.

Please answer the question.

2) An infinite sequence of actions in a finite amount of time (for example, Zeno's Paradoxes). Some theoretical models suggest that if each preceding hour takes half the time of the one before it, an infinite amount of hours can mathematically fit into a finite window, allowing the sequence to reach the present.

Nonsense. That's like saying you can fit an infinite amount of matter, into a finite amount of space.

Makes no sense.

3) The past is not a completed, static set of infinite hours; rather, it is an open-ended progression.

This is incorrect.

The past is an infinite "set", which is an infinite collection of events, hours, seconds, years, centuries, millenniums.

Each of those fragments of time have different quantities, yet on an infinite timeline, each one has been traversed an equal (infinite) amount of times.

And there lies the absurdity.

We arrive at "now" simply because time unfolds one step at a time, and the past is just a record of those sequential steps.

Not possible.

You cannot arrive at one step, if, you had to traverse an infinite number of steps to reach it.

Analogy..

Let's imagine you've successfully traversed an infinite amount of steps to receive a cash reward.

In essence, you've reached (and traversed) infinity.

Now, imagine you were tasked to retrace your steps in the opposite direction and stop once you've reached infinity, you'll receive another cash reward.

But this time, I want you to count each step and tell me what number will correspond to the last and final step.

And you begin to walk, and count.

What number will correspond to the last/final step?

It may not for some, but it does for you. Otherwise, why bother attempting to denounce it again and again throughout your existence here? It would be just as arbitrary as trying to refute atomic theory.

Evolution fails the observation, experiment, and predictions test...you know, actual science.

That's why I denounce it.

See my response directly above. Your useless handwaving is always noted.

I saw your response, and I deem it as speculative bio-babble.

The worst kind of deception is self-deception. Please keep studying it, as this analogy alone completely dismantles the fine-tuning argument. The stuff given/provided by Dr. Carroll is just the icing, whipped cream, nuts, and cherry on the proverbial cake.

Um, the analogy fails because the puddle doesn't know whether the hole is a nature-made crater, or a man-made hole.

And to demonstrate how the analogy fails; water in a dam can say the same thing as the puddle.

Yet, some dams are actually man-made...so if the water in the dam made such an assessment, it would be correct.

So, the analogy doesn't rule out fine-tuning at all.

Next..

Dr. Carroll mentions that "he is very pleased because this argument is the ONLY one which plays by the rules, but that it is still a terrible argument." For which he lists all the reasons.

Dr. Craig responded to those points, sir.

And as I mentioned before, in the debate, Dr. Craig cited a quote from Carroll, and the quote consisted of Carroll stating in previous times that fine-tuning is indeed a problem...but yet, in the debate, Carroll suddenly wants to act brand new.

Anyway, the question is; how is it best explained?

Entropy is one of the most understood concepts of science, and it just simply doesn't work that way, on naturalism.

If you had a million cut-out words in a giant box and stood on a balcony and poured all the content of the box out, you'd expect a highly disordered event of words floating around randomly, and landing on ground level...and if you conduct such an experiment, thats what you will get.

What you won't get, and what you won't expect is an ordered, ground-level landing formation and sequence of comprehensive sentences of those words.

And thats precisely what we get with the big bang and fine-tuning of the universe.

It was a highly ordered event.

Further, multiverse modeling emerged from independent theories in physics, like quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation, prior to apologists bring forth this teleological argument.

I know, that's why I said "partly".

And the other "part" is; naturalists use the multiverse theory as a way to multiply probabilities...the mentality is, "if there exists an infinite amount of universes, then it should be no surprise that at least one of them is life-permitting".

That is the idea...and they use that same rationale to explain away fine-tuning.

The fine-tuning argument is a modern development in Christian apologetics. It was first formulated in the late 1970s and 1980s by Christian philosophers and scientists, most notably Robin Collins, John Polkinghorne, Richard Swinburne, and William Lane Craig.

Fred Hoyle first noticed fine-tuning in the 1950's.

More handwaving... This would objectively be poor design. Which contradicts the concept of ID. Unless the "I" in ID stands for (I)nept. Your handwave here speaks volumes about how you know these observations do not bode well for your assertion of the "Christian god". And your failure to explain why a god would deliberately design such flawed concept(s) is a testament to your demonstrated intellectual dishonesty here.

First of all, I disagree with the premise that the design is poor.

That is your assessment, and one that I do not share.

Now you have pivoted to a completely different topic. I've just demonstrated how no such asserted entity can logically exist, as you have asserted he is outside of "time".

No, that's not what I asserted, as I do not hold such belief.

Again, before we get to God, we need to understand how present moments (or events in time) can be traversed on an infinite, past-eternal timeline...which is the default position of naturalism...and one which defies logical reasoning.

Please concede the point, in that the "universe" is not claimed to be a "mind" nor outside of "time", where-as god is claimed to possess both. And since actions, consciousness, and event sequencing all requires time, your god concept is now completely kaput.

We are talking about the universe now. I asked the question first, and your elementary response was "But it applies to God, too".

No, let's deal with my critique of your position first, since I asked first.

We'll get to God, but first, there is work to be done here.

Well, without the necessity of time, your god can't logically act. Once you concede the complete refutation of your prior assertion, we can <then> address this complete moving of the goalposts; but really just for funsies, as your god concept is already dead in the water.

My point exactly^. Just as I said above.

If you want to play fair, I have already asked you this question twice. Yours goalpost shift here is to avoid the fact that god cannot actually logically operate outside of 'time'.

Um, no you didn't.

You weren't thinking about infinite regress until I mentioned it first.

The fact that you've become all dodgy and deflective, let's me know that there is blood in the water.

Since we agree energy is eternal, your last ray of hope is to demonstrate that (energy ='s god). Can you do that or not? I've asked you this three times now.

I can, but there is still some unpacking left to do with my critique of your position..and all you've done is dodge and deflect.

I understand that when you get triggered, you see red. Yet again, the story told about Joseph smith discovering magical golden plates is more contemporary than the story told about Jesus's magical rising.

Ok, thats them.

That ain't Jesus.

We need contemporary sources to JESUS, not people claiming they saw stuff 2,000 years later after the fact.

So please, stop using this apologetic too. as being more contemporary means nothing. You already demonstrated this when you shifted your argument to disbelief when I already pointed this out prior.

Oh, so now all of a sudden being contemporary means nothing...when one of the main critiques of the historicity of Jesus, is that the sources AREN'T contemporary.

SMH.

No, you have not answered. I asked if god loves all, why avoid so many who require the same evidence in which he gave to Saul of Tarsus? Jesus 'zapped' Paul to make him become a believer. Why does Saul get special privileges when he knows countless others would not be a believer, unless given the same treatment? Is it because god WANTS them in hell, even though he apparently loves all?

I did answer.

For every one person who believed in Jesus while he was on earth, there was another person who still didn't believe, despite him being on earth.

So the two sides cancels out.

And Jesus said we are blessed despite what we don't see.

And if Jesus' words ain't good enough for you, ain't nothing I can do to help ya.

Oh, I forgot, you actually have to believe in Jesus, in order for his words to be good enough for ya.

My bad.

This is a very poor analogy Venom, You can do better. Stop the avoidance. Humans don't require 'cliffs' for survival.

Not falling off a cliff is a requirement for survival.

But we do require water. And god created a planet, with US in mind, where the vast majority of the lifesaving water is poison for US. Why? Your continued avoidance to this question, along with the others, does nothing more than to expose your continued intellectual dishonesty.

Then don't drink the water that has poison in it.

And while you're at it..

Don't run with scissors in your hand.

Dont eat yellow snow.

Dont pull up your pants, until you finish wiping.

Don't trust any cleaning lady, whose name is "Dusty".

Not sure what you want me to say.

No, it does not stand. I responded, in that countless holes and puddles are not 'created'.

And countless are.

And yet, the "uncreated water" still fits seamlessly into the "uncreated hole" just-the-same. This is why I asked how we can know what was designed and what is not?

I already explained how/why we infer ID.

And when we jump forward to humans, I listed just a few attributes which instead of representing 'order', it instead presents with the twists and turns of evolutionary processes, as our bodies possess many functions and attributes which are inefficient, or are completely against our well-being. Not to mention the countless lines of junk DNA, etc... What you are effectively doing is accepting the hits and ignoring the misses. The hypothetical puddle, 'created' by naturalism, comes to life and finds itself in the situation it is in. Naturalism explains it all, but the puddle is dilutional.

With all due respect, I can care less about any of that.

All I want to know is how can mindless/blind processes create order, function, and purpose...along with defying 1 chance in 10^10^123 odds.

Oh wow! I forgot, you have Mr. Hovind and Mr. Strobel leading the charge for truth.

Weak sauce.

LOL! I guess you forgot that IC has been completely debunked in the court of law, with a conservative judge residing the case to boot.

Injustice.

Why would a creator, where humans are apparently the focus, be created to live in a universe or universe(s) where it's all poison (outside of earth), and the one planet we live on (earth), only has a very small fraction as being inhabitable? Since I've already asked this question, for which is just another question you avoid, it is because we are not the focus in which we wish to flatter ourselves to be. We are instead insignificant. Likely because we were not 'created.'

Ok, so if we weren't the focus, explain fine-tuning and 1 chance in 10^10^123, on naturalism.

Again, this makes no sense, in relation to what you stated prior. If god created this habitat for US, then I explained above why this makes no sense.

Your subjective explanation did not (and does not) negate those odds^.

This is nothing but cope, in light of the fact that you are completely contradicting yourself. If we were instead nowhere near any priority, then maybe you would have a proverbial 'leg' to stand upon.

Weak sauce.

[POI]

Just a reminder Venom, the topic is called "Where's God?"

.Not so fast. None of your "reasons" justifies a life-long, full-throttle devotion and obsession with a religion of which you find ridiculous to believe in. Nice try, but I ain't buying it.

Great. If you're not buying it, then there would be no need for you to engage me thread after thread after thread.

Im glad you admit that the universe had a beginning. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. So, what could give the universe (space, time, energy, matter; STEM) it's beginning? Anything composed of STEM is disqualified as a viable answer. Please answer the question.

We've already been over this multiple times Venom. Your question does not lead to where you want it to go. To the bolded. I've already established that a 'mind' cannot exist outside of time (for the reasons I have already told you). Which means your asserted invisible agent cannot exist outside of the confines of 'STEM'. Further, we already agree that energy is eternal. Your 'god of the gaps' argument fails miserably, again, unless you can demonstrate that energy ='s god. But you already know that you can't, because god is said to have a mind.

Nonsense. That's like saying you can fit an infinite amount of matter, into a finite amount of space. Makes no sense.

A lot of things do not "make sense" to a lot of people Venom. This does not mean you get to invoke the invisible sky carcass as the answer.

In theoretical physics and advanced mathematics, a "superstack" is not a physical object in the traditional sense, but is a mathematical framework. Also known in geometry as a "moduli superstack", it is a generalized space that allows physicists and mathematicians to neatly parameterize and study supersymmetric objects, such as "super Riemann surfaces" and "superfields."

This is incorrect. The past is an infinite "set", which is an infinite collection of events, hours, seconds, years, centuries, millenniums. Each of those fragments of time have different quantities, yet on an infinite timeline, each one has been traversed an equal (infinite) amount of times. And there lies the absurdity

Not possible. You cannot arrive at one step, if, you had to traverse an infinite number of steps to reach it. Analogy.. Let's imagine you've successfully traversed an infinite amount of steps to receive a cash reward. In essence, you've reached (and traversed) infinity. Now, imagine you were tasked to retrace your steps in the opposite direction and stop once you've reached infinity, you'll receive another cash reward. But this time, I want you to count each step and tell me what number will correspond to the last and final step. And you begin to walk, and count. What number will correspond to the last/final step?

Again, many things do not make sense to a lot of people. And this is exactly where the invisible sky carcass resides. Oh wait, we've already ruled that option out.

Evolution fails the observation, experiment, and predictions test...you know, actual science. That's why I denounce it.

There would be no need for (you) to 'denounce' it if it was not relevant to debating your version of the Christian god. And yet, you've brought up the big "E" many of times... So, yes. For you, the big 'E' is relevant to Christianity.

Um, the analogy fails because the puddle doesn't know whether the hole is a nature-made crater, or a man-made hole. And to demonstrate how the analogy fails; water in a dam can say the same thing as the puddle. Yet, some dams are actually man-made...so if the water in the dam made such an assessment, it would be correct. So, the analogy doesn't rule out fine-tuning at all.

You got so close (again), and then you disconnected (again). Again, in your worldview, this habitat was created for us. But in your worldview, god created all that he created so that we can inhabit a very small piece within it. And when we observed the part which was asserted to be "created", we instead find that it was not. And I've already spoke to why this is several times. Hence, in the analogy, it is the "nature-made crater."

Dr. Craig responded to those points

Quiz question, what were the points?

It was a highly ordered event.

"Highly ordered" against humans. If the universe was 'created', your argument is instead more analogous to someone laying down 1 trillion yards of concrete, and when some weeds emerge within some later developed cracks in one small area, and some weeds from some of those developed cracks state that it was 'made' for us. In this analogy, the concrete was not created so cracks can form, and that some weeds can later sprout from them. And yet, there they are. The weeds somehow defied the odds, even though this was not the creator's intent.

To tie this all together, we humans defied the 'odds', but not in the way YOU are presenting the case. At best (for you), if a designer exists and designed, we were likely the furthest thing from this designer's mind.

I know, that's why I said "partly". And the other "part" is; naturalists use the multiverse theory as a way to multiply probabilities...the mentality is, "if there exists an infinite amount of universes, then it should be no surprise that at least one of them is life-permitting". That is the idea...and they use that same rationale to explain away fine-tuning.

Your worldview cracks me up Venom. You are under the impression that some of 'science' is there to try and disprove god. As if a group of scientists get together and say, "hey guys, let's formulate some hypothesis and make it sound legit, because we are all secret god believers and want to continue denying his existence.' I guess Dr. Carroll is a liar too when he states that 'god' does not even enter into the conversation when they are doing research. Meaning, they have no predisposition to try and rule 'god' out.

Ironically speaking, early 'science' was intended to try and prove a god, but it kept backfiring the other direction. Historically, what we now call "science" was deeply intertwined with religion. Many early pioneers of modern science did not view their work as an alternative to faith, but rather as a way to understand and "read the mind" of a Creator. But since these gaps for god continue to get smaller and smaller, you have very few bastions of hope left.

Fred Hoyle first noticed fine-tuning in the 1950's.

So?

First of all, I disagree with the premise that the design is poor. That is your assessment, and one that I do not share.

Please then explain why all the said attributed were instead intelligently designed those specific ways? Pleading ignorance again causes you to shoot yourself in the foot, as you already assert we are instead intelligently designed. So please, tell me, why where these sighted designs (posted a few responses back) deemed intelligent as opposed to ineptly?

I can

Great. How does (energy = god)?

Ok, thats them. That ain't Jesus. We need contemporary sources to JESUS, not people claiming they saw stuff 2,000 years later after the fact.

You keep missing this point Venom. The point is that (being contemporary) has nothing to do with it. We know this because you called Mr. Smith a liar when he claimed to have found magical plates, even though his testimonial to finding these magical plates is quite contemporary.

Oh, so now all of a sudden being contemporary means nothing...when one of the main critiques of the historicity of Jesus, is that the sources AREN'T contemporary.

That's not my argument. I understand that the term 'contemporary' can possess a very broad brush and also that the term "contemporary" sometimes carries more 'weight' to some claims. My point is instead that Mr. Smith's claim(s) to his magical events are objectively more contemporary than the anonymous claim(s) made about Jesus's magical events.

Where you are concerned, being contemporary means nothing when it comes to the claim of a Mr. Smith claiming to locate magical plates, even though this claim is even more contemporary. Here, you divert to disbelief in his claim. And yet, it is still more believable than a less 'contemporary' claim made about a rotting corpse magically rising.

For every one person who believed in Jesus while he was on earth, there was another person who still didn't believe, despite him being on earth. So the two sides cancels out.

Still not answered. Allow me to keep asking, until you answer my actual question.

If god is all-loving, and this all-loving god created a rule where belief in him is a minimum requirement, and this all-loving god knows that not all would believe in him unless they got 'zapped' by god, and this all-loving god has also been said to 'zap' some into belief, why not 'zap' all others who carry the same unbelief and need the same evidence? Sure, some of us may not later follow him, but at least all would then carry the minimum requirement, and it would then remain the human's choice as to (whether or not) to follow him.

Not falling off a cliff is a requirement for survival.

Even the ancients knew that cliffs, yellow snow, etc were dangerous because those observed findings are obvious. Alternatively, too bad countless people die unknowingly drinking unclean water. Heck, even today, over 1 million people still die every year from diseases related to unsafe drinking water. Why did god design most of our water supply to be harmful to us humans, when we require it for survival at the same time?

With all due respect, I can care less about any of that.

I don't blame you for saying that. It's a rather tough pill to swallow otherwise.

All I want to know is how can mindless/blind processes create order, function, and purpose...

There is already a peer reviewed science which lends answers for this. So, for you, this is where the handwaving commences. Therefore, the big "E" was developed to 'deny' god.

along with defying 1 chance in 10^10^123 odds.

Already answered in the video. You know, the one where an actual scientist responds. The answer is actually "1".

Injustice.

Nah, just more denial. The term 'bacterial flagellum' will now forever haunt 'creationists' who thought they had a slam dunk case in arguing for ID, but instead were turned up-side-down, to go back to the proverbial drawing board.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #392]

Just a reminder Venom, the topic is called "Where's God?"

Just a reminder to you, POI.

God doesn't exist (according to you).

So, no need to sit around asking questions pertaining to it.

If God doesn't exist, then leave it alone.

Let it go.

Great. If you're not buying it, then there would be no need for you to engage me thread after thread after thread.

I don't.

Of your countless threads, I am selective on which ones constitutes intellectual spankings.

We've already been over this multiple times Venom. Your question does not lead to where you want it to go. To the bolded. I've already established that a 'mind' cannot exist outside of time (for the reasons I have already told you).

You didn't.

You made an unsupported assertion that I didn't entertain.

Further, we already agree that energy is eternal. Your 'god of the gaps' argument fails miserably, again, unless you can demonstrate that energy ='s god. But you already know that you can't, because god is said to have a mind.

I'm not interesting in red herrings, deflections, and filibustering.

I asked you a direct question based on an assertion that you made (which I agree with).

Now, you admitted that the universe had a beginning, and I'm simply asking you what could have given the universe (space, time, energy, and matter) it's beginning.

The question is fair, direct, and relevant...and I shouldn't have to twist your arm or pull your teeth to get you to answer a question in a debate, based on a statement that YOU made.

A lot of things do not "make sense" to a lot of people Venom. This does not mean you get to invoke the invisible sky carcass as the answer.

In theoretical physics and advanced mathematics, a "superstack" is not a physical object in the traditional sense, but is a mathematical framework. Also known in geometry as a "moduli superstack", it is a generalized space that allows physicists and mathematicians to neatly parameterize and study supersymmetric objects, such as "super Riemann surfaces" and "superfields."

Hmm, more deflections.

Anyways, you cannot traverse infinity, in a finite amount of time.

It is logically impossible, and nothing you've said can/will negate this absurdity.

Again, many things do not make sense to a lot of people. And this is exactly where the invisible sky carcass resides. Oh wait, we've already ruled that option out.

Yet, another question dodged.

The question of "where's God?"...God is seated directly behind the First Cause argument, the one that you are incapable of debunking.

Yet, you have the nerve to cry about there being no evidence for God?

That's wild.

There would be no need for (you) to 'denounce' it if it was not relevant to debating your version of the Christian god. And yet, you've brought up the big "E" many of times... So, yes. For you, the big 'E' is relevant to Christianity.

Whether or not I accept evolution, has no bearing on the message of the cross.

You got so close (again), and then you disconnected (again). Again, in your worldview, this habitat was created for us. But in your worldview, god created all that he created so that we can inhabit a very small piece within it.

Fine tuning is required for even that small piece to be life permitting.

And when we observed the part which was asserted to be "created", we instead find that it was not.

Then explain fine-tuning, on naturalism.

You won't, because you can't.

And I've already spoke to why this is several times. Hence, in the analogy, it is the "nature-made crater."

Unsupported assertion.

Quiz question, what were the points?

Let's deal with the point of Dr. Craig quoting Carroll of saying fine-tuning is indeed a problem.

Don't need to look any further than that.

I mentioned this at least 3 times, and you've been on mute concerning it.

"Highly ordered" against humans. If the universe was 'created', your argument is instead more analogous to someone laying down 1 trillion yards of concrete, and when some weeds emerge within some later developed cracks, some weeds from some of those developed cracks state that it was 'made' for us. In this analogy, the concrete was not created so cracks can form, and that some weeds can later sprout from them. And yet, there they are. The weeds somehow defied the odds, even though this was not the creator's intent.

To ttie this all together, we humans defied the 'odds', but not in the way YOU are presenting the case. At best (for you), if a designer exists and designed, we were likely the furthest thing from this designer's mind.

Nonsense. The human anatomy, with its..

1. Function
2. Purpose
3. Order

You cannot be a product of those 3^, and be an accident or an afterthought.

But of course, the idea of deism may be in fact more desirable, if one is trying to avoid a God who actually cares and wants you to live a certain life contrary to the one you want to live.

Your worldview cracks me up Venom. You are under the impression that some of 'science' is there to try and disprove god. As if a group of scientists get together and say, "hey guys, let's formulate some hypothesis and make it sound legit, because we are all secret god believers and want to continue denying his existence.'

Yeah, something like that.

I guess Dr. Carroll is a liar too when he states that 'god' does not even enter into the conversation when they are doing research. Meaning, they have no predisposition to try and rule 'god' out.

When Hugh Ross does his research, God does enter the conversation.

Ironically speaking, early 'science' was intended to try and prove a god, but it kept backfiring the other direction. Historically, what we now call "science" was deeply intertwined with religion. Many early pioneers of modern science did not view their work as an alternative to faith, but rather as a way to understand and "read the mind" of a Creator. But since these gaps for god continue to get smaller and smaller, you have very few bastions of hope left.

Point?

So?

You said 70's and 80's.

Please then explain why all the said attributed were instead intelligently designed those specific ways?

Because with the fall of man, came the second law of thermodynamics.

Great. How does (energy = god)?

Because nature has successfully been ruled out...unless you can answer any of the questions above, which you can't.

You keep missing this point Venom. The point is that (being contemporary) has nothing to do with it. We know this because you called Mr. Smith a liar when he claimed to have found magical plates, even though his testimonial to finding these magical plates is quite contemporary.

Again, he ain't contemporary to Jesus...and I explained why your rationale doesn't work.

If you don't get it, then I don't know what to tell ya.

That's not my argument. I understand that the term 'contemporary' can possess a very broad brush. My point is that Mr. Smith's claim(s) to his magical events are objectively more contemporary than the anonymous claim(s) made about Jesus's magical events.

Where you are concerned, being contemporary means nothing when it comes to the claim of a Mr. Smith claiming to locate magical plates. Even though this claim is even more contemporary. And yet, it is still more believable than a less 'contemporary' claim made about a rotting corpse magically rising.

Again, I can care less what people are saying and testifying 2,000 years after the actual standard(s) of Jesus' teachings were set in stone.

If you come 2,000 years later with new teachings that contradict Orthodox Christian beliefs, then you are a false teacher...as Paul said.

Gal 1:8-9
8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

That is my standard.

Still not answered. Allow me to keep asking, until you answer my actual question.

Since belief is a requirement, and god knows many will not believe he exists unless he gives them the 'Damascus road experience', why does he avoid these folks, while also knowing unbelief sends those folks to hell, while also being claimed to love all?

I don't know...but since I'm part of the "blessed who did not see, and still believes" camp, I do not care.

If that is what's holding you back, then continue to be held back.

Now, I said I don't know...so you can stop asking me the question.

Even the ancients knew that because the danger is obvious. Too bad countless people die unknowingly drinking unclean water. Heck, even today, over 1 million people still die every year from diseases related to unsafe drinking water. Why did god design most of our water supply to be harmful to us humans, when we require it for survival at the same time?

People die for all kinds of reasons, since we live in a fallen world.

There is already a peer reviewed science which lends answers for this. So, for you, this is where the handwaving commences. And yes, the big "E" was developed to 'deny' god.

The Bible lends answers for it, too.

Already answered in the video. You know, the one where an actual scientist responds. The answer is actually "1".

1 what?

Nah, just more denial. The term 'bacterial flagellum' will now forever haunt 'creationists' who thought they had a slam dunk case in arguing for ID, but instead were turned up-side-down, to go back to the proverbial drawing board.

Relying on man, instead of God.

[POI]

If God doesn't exist, then leave it alone. Let it go.

Thanks for the advice "dad".

Of your countless threads, I am selective on which ones constitutes intellectual spankings.

If you think I'm a "secret believer", which makes me a troll or a liar, then engaging countless times, in this thread alone, is a complete waste of your time. Let it go.

You didn't. You made an unsupported assertion that I didn't entertain.

Of course I did. Mindful states require "S(T)EM." You have made no effort to rebut it. And since god is asserted to possess a mind, your version cannot exist outside "naturalism". You are just quick with the handwaving nuh uh defense as cope.

Now, you admitted that the universe had a beginning,.... what could have given the universe (space, time, energy, and matter) it's beginning

Kool yer jets there buddy. This is where wordplay is important. I've told you in the past that to ask what came before the 'big bang' is like asking what is north of the North Pole? It's nonsensical. Further, we cannot investigate 'before' this moment. This does not mean 'absolutely' nothing at all existed, as I do not think "absolutely nothing" was ever a thing. But we can perform a series of 'rule outs', and a claimed mindful creator, who is outside time, is logically impossible. This effectively rules out your asserted invisible sky carcass theory.

you cannot traverse infinity, in a finite amount of time. It is logically impossible, and nothing you've said can/will negate this absurdity.

The blank statement is false because infinite intervals can have a finite measurement. In mathematics and physics, completing an infinite sequence of events or crossing an infinite number of sub-intervals in a finite time is entirely possible through the concept of convergence.

God is seated directly behind the First Cause argument, the one that you are incapable of debunking.

When you ignore all sorts of stuff, you can say anything. A 'mindful' agent cannot bring time into existence, as I continue to explain why, ad nauseum. Further, modern quantum mechanics demonstrates that some physical events, at the subatomic level, happen without a specific cause. This undermines the absolute premise that nothing can begin to exist without a cause.

Fine tuning is required for even that small piece to be life permitting.

My point continues to press your assertion that "it's made for us", when I have demonstrated, time and time again, that any such 'creator', if there even IS one, did not create any of this with us humans in mind at all. Got it?

Let's deal with the point of Dr. Craig quoting Carroll of saying fine-tuning is indeed a problem. Don't need to look any further than that. I mentioned this at least 3 times, and you've been on mute concerning it.

If he really thought it was a true 'problem', he would not have listed all the points in the debate. But he did, so I guess it is not a 'problem' after all. Further, he happily admits the fine-tuning argument is the best argument that theists have because it plays by the rules, but that it is still terrible.

Quiz question (again):

What are these points that Caroll mentions in which you believe have been refuted?

Nonsense. The human anatomy, with its..

1. Function
2. Purpose
3. Order

You cannot be a product of those 3^, and be an accident or an afterthought.

But of course, the idea of deism may be in fact more desirable, if one is trying to avoid a God who actually cares and wants you to live a certain life contrary to the one you want to live.

In here lies the impasse we reached last go-around. I wanted to make you the deal-of-the-year. 'Generic deism' true, but Christianity, however, is false. You declined. Under YOUR worldview, many body systems lack intelligent design principles, which negates your perception of ID and 'god.' I'm not even saying any god exists, but if it does, it's certainly not favoring the well-being of human beings. That's for sure.

Yeah, something like that.

Then here lies another impasse.

Point?

Modern science is not 'out to debunk god.' But past science was out to prove god but instead failed. God was never to be found. As time rolls on, the 'god of the gaps' got ever so smaller. This is why you are reduced to the very few topics you have left, plus also the necessity to deny some of the peer reviewed science(s).

Because with the fall of man, came the second law of thermodynamics.

Did the urethra go through the prostate before the fall?
Was the woman's birth canal narrow before the fall?
Did a loopy larynx exist before the fall?
Were we born with an appendix before the fall?
Did we share an airway with a foodway before the fall?
Were we able to produce vitamin C before the fall?
etc etc etc etc etc.............

Because nature has successfully been ruled out...unless you can answer any of the questions above, which you can't.

But your god cannot exist outside nature, as nature requires time. So now what?

Again, he ain't contemporary to Jesus

I never claimed he was. You brought up an argument that possessing 'contemporary evidence' gives it more veracity. Well, when I demonstrated a claim even more contemporary, you immediately pivoted and called him a liar. Well, just as you do not believe Mr. Smith's firsthand and more contemporary and less wild tale, I too (also) do not believe the anonymous secondhand and less contemporary wilder tale.

I don't know...but since I'm part of the "blessed who did not see, and still believes" camp, I do not care.

I deem your answer a dodgy non-answer. Yes, saying 'I don't know' is fully granted and acceptable in many cases. But not in this one. I've already laid out all the receipts, which were already established in the OP.

People die for all kinds of reasons, since we live in a fallen world.

This is cope. And I know it's uncomfortable for you. It also represents injustice, as countless children die from simply drinking water in which none of them can see as danger, as germs are "invisible". I'll ask again for earnesty this time. Since water is vital for human survival, why did god create a majority of it to be poisonous to us?

1 what?

The probability is 1. Watch the video.

Relying on man, instead of God.

Nope. Relying upon facts and evidence, not on made up invisible sky fairies.

[SiNcE_1985]

If you think I'm a "secret believer", which makes me a troll or a liar, then engaging countless times, in this thread alone, is a complete waste of your time. Let it go.

It's not, if the desire to issue out an intellectual spanking outweighs any thoughts of wastes of time.

Sometimes, it gets the best of me.

Of course I did. Mindful states require "S(T)EM." You have made no effort to rebut it. And since god is asserted to possess a mind, your version cannot exist outside "naturalism". You are just quick with the handwaving nuh uh defense as cope.

I need my points to be addressed, before we entertain yours.

This whole "but, it applies to your side too", is weak sauce.

Kool yer jets there buddy. This is where wordplay is important. I've told you in the past that to ask what came before the 'big bang' is like asking what is north of the North Pole? It's nonsensical.

Nonsense.

Everything that begins to exist, has a cause...and I'm simply asking for the cause.

You had no problem offering a "cause" of why a black widow spider eats her mate.

Now, all of a sudden when it comes to the question of what caused the universe, it is "nooo, you can't ask that..that's like asking what is north of the North Pole".

Weak, and dodgy.

The universe BEGAN to exist...so whatever gave it its beginning, could not itself be comprised of what it produced.

We are talking about a timeless, immaterial, sentient source of energy which cannot be a product of natural phenomenon.

I know such an answer is your worse nightmare, as an atheist. But too bad, so sad.

Further, we cannot investigate 'before' this moment.

I agree that we can't; not with science.

Science deals STEM.

Any realities outside of STEM, science loses it explanatory power. That's were metaphysics comes in...and critical, philosophical thinking...which takes you down a path of complete discomfort.

But again, too bad, so sad.

This does not mean 'absolutely' nothing at all existed, as I do not think "absolutely nothing" was ever a thing. But we can perform a series of 'rule outs', and a claimed mindful creator, who is outside time, is logically impossible. This effectively rules out your asserted invisible sky carcass theory.

If it rules out my sky carcass theory...then effectively, the past is eternal.

But we can demonstrate that the past cannot be eternal.

So that rules out naturalism..and no amount of bio or cosmo-babble can save it.

The blank statement is false because infinite intervals can have a finite measurement. In mathematics and physics, completing an infinite sequence of events or crossing an infinite number of sub-intervals in a finite time is entirely possible through the concept of convergence.

Oh, really?

So, you can walk an infinite amount of intervals (steps), in a finite amount of time?

Really? This is like saying "I can walk an infinite amount of steps, in 24 hrs" (or choose whatever duration of time you like".

This is impossible and an insult to even the intelligence of beetle.

But I get it..."Any explanation, no matter how absurd, is still better than the "G" word".

When you ignore all sorts of stuff, you can say anything. A 'mindful' agent cannot bring time into existence, as I continue to explain why, ad nauseum.

I understand that your position is so absurd, that you'd rather sweep all the issues concerning it under the rug and focus on God concepts that you don't believe exists...I get it.

But, no...both you and your position will continue to get held to the fire.

Further, modern quantum mechanics demonstrates that some physical events, at the subatomic level, happen without a specific cause. This undermines the absolute premise that nothing can begin to exist without a cause.

The whole quantum physics/virtual particles thing is an old, played out routine by atheists that has lost its effect and has been defunct for at least the past 10-15 years.

The particles doesn't pop in to being out of a state of "nothingness" in the true, literal sense...and not to mention the philosophical problems concerning, if it that were the case...why do just virtual particles pop in to being out of nothing? Why not bikes, money, or gold bars...or anything and everything?

Since when did "nothing" become so discriminatory?

Dr. Craig raised this question in the debate with Carroll, btw.

My point continues to press your assertion that "it's made for us", when I have demonstrated, time and time again, that any such 'creator', if there even IS one, did not create any of this with us humans in mind at all. Got it?

Yeah, I responded to that.

If he really thought it was a true 'problem', he would not have listed all the points in the debate. But he did, so I guess it is not a 'problem' after all. Further, he happily admits the fine-tuning argument is the best argument that theists have because it plays by the rules, but that it is still terrible.

Well, Dr. Craig didn't pull the quote out of his keister.

If Carroll said it, he said it.

Carroll probably made the statement on some small, relatively unknown platform and didn't think that Craig would be researched enough to find it.

Or, Carroll may have simply either forgot he said it, or has changed his views since he said it.

Quiz question (again):

What are these points that Caroll mentions in which you believe have been refuted?

Dude, you are filibustering.

You're the one who brought up the Craig/Carroll debate.

I assumed you watched it, so I don't need to tell you Craig responses.

If you watched it, you know. If you didn't, then shame on you. Watch it.

In here lies the impasse we reached last go-around. I wanted to make you the deal-of-the-year. 'Generic deism' true, but Christianity, however, is false. You declined. Under YOUR worldview, many body systems lack intelligent design principles, which negates your perception of ID and 'god.' I'm not even saying any god exists, but if it does, it's certainly not favoring the well-being of human beings. That's for sure.

I declined for good reason.

Any rational, common-sense being should be a deist, at worse.

Modern science is not 'out to debunk god.'

But scientists are.

But past science was out to prove god but instead failed. God was never to be found. As time rolls on, the 'god of the gaps' got ever so smaller. This is why you are reduced to the very few topics you have left, plus also the necessity to deny some of the peer reviewed science(s).

What is the history of scientists using science to prove God?

Did the urethra go through the prostate before the fall?
Was the woman's birth canal narrow before the fall?
Did a loopy larynx exist before the fall?
Were we born with an appendix before the fall?
Did we share an airway with a foodway before the fall?
Were we able to produce vitamin C before the fall?
etc etc etc etc etc.............

The Bible say that God created everything "good".

Depends on what was meant by "good".

But your god cannot exist outside nature, as nature requires time. So now what?

Nature began to exist with the beginning of the universe...meaning; something outside of nature had to produce..nature.

I never claimed he was. You brought up an argument that possessing 'contemporary evidence' gives it more veracity. Well, when I demonstrated a claim even more contemporary, you immediately pivoted and called him a liar. Well, just as you do not believe Mr. Smith's firsthand and more contemporary and less wild tale, I too (also) do not believe the anonymous secondhand and less contemporary wilder tale.

Well again, for the umpteenth time...we need sources contemporary to the standard, which is Jesus Christ and the first century apostles.

Joseph Smith and company were not contemporary to the standard...but to their own standard.

Their own standard, is not the standard.

Repeat after me..nice and slow.

"Their....standard...was...not...Jesus'...standard...and...being...contemporary...to...Jesus'...standard...is...where...any...Christian...who...values...Orthodoxy...would...like..to..be........as...opposed...to...people...living....2,000....years...later...claiming...they...saw...something."

Got it?

I deem your answer a dodgy non-answer. Yes, saying 'I don't know' is fully granted and acceptable in many cases. But not in this one. I've already laid out all the receipts, which were already established in the OP.

Oh, I get it.

My "I don't know" doesn't count because I don't have on a lab coat.

It seems that only those with lab coats gets their "I don't know" respected.

Meanwhile, "I don't know's" from anyone else (especially clergy members), gets ridiculed...pointed and laughed at.

This is cope. And I know it's uncomfortable for you. It also represents injustice, as countless children die from simply drinking water in which none of them can see as danger, as germs are "invisible". I'll ask again for earnesty this time. Since water is vital for human survival, why did god create a majority of it to be poisonous to us?

Those children receives eternal salvation with Christ.

What about you?

The probability is 1. Watch the video.

Makes no sense.

Nope. Relying upon facts and evidence, not on made up invisible sky fairies.

Ain't mad at cha.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #394]

[

If you think I'm a "secret believer", which makes me a troll or a liar, then engaging countless times, in this thread alone, is a complete waste of your time. Let it go.

It's not, if the desire to issue out an intellectual spanking outweighs any thoughts of wastes of time.

Sometimes, it gets the best of me.

Of course I did. Mindful states require "S(T)EM." You have made no effort to rebut it. And since god is asserted to possess a mind, your version cannot exist outside "naturalism". You are just quick with the handwaving nuh uh defense as cope.

I need my points to be addressed, before we entertain yours.

This whole "but, it applies to your side too", is weak sauce.

Kool yer jets there buddy. This is where wordplay is important. I've told you in the past that to ask what came before the 'big bang' is like asking what is north of the North Pole? It's nonsensical.

Nonsense.

Everything that begins to exist, has a cause...and I'm simply asking for the cause.

You had no problem offering a "cause" of why a black widow spider eats her mate.

Now, all of a sudden when it comes to the question of what caused the universe, it is "nooo, you can't ask that..that's like asking what is north of the North Pole".

Weak, and dodgy.

The universe BEGAN to exist...so whatever gave it its beginning, could not itself be comprised of what it produced.

We are talking about a timeless, immaterial, sentient source of energy which cannot be a product of natural phenomenon.

I know such an answer is your worse nightmare, as an atheist. But too bad, so sad.

Further, we cannot investigate 'before' this moment.

I agree that we can't; not with science.

Science deals STEM.

Any realities outside of STEM, science loses it explanatory power. That's were metaphysics comes in...and critical, philosophical thinking...which takes you down a path of complete discomfort.

But again, too bad, so sad.

This does not mean 'absolutely' nothing at all existed, as I do not think "absolutely nothing" was ever a thing. But we can perform a series of 'rule outs', and a claimed mindful creator, who is outside time, is logically impossible. This effectively rules out your asserted invisible sky carcass theory.

If it rules out my sky carcass theory...then effectively, the past is eternal.

But we can demonstrate that the past cannot be eternal.

So that rules out naturalism..and no amount of bio or cosmo-babble can save it.

The blank statement is false because infinite intervals can have a finite measurement. In mathematics and physics, completing an infinite sequence of events or crossing an infinite number of sub-intervals in a finite time is entirely possible through the concept of convergence.

Oh, really?

So, you can walk an infinite amount of intervals (steps), in a finite amount of time?

Really? This is like saying "I can walk an infinite amount of steps, in 24 hrs" (or choose whatever duration of time you like".

This is impossible and an insult to even the intelligence of beetle.

But I get it..."Any explanation, no matter how absurd, is still better than the "G" word".

When you ignore all sorts of stuff, you can say anything. A 'mindful' agent cannot bring time into existence, as I continue to explain why, ad nauseum.

I understand that your position is so absurd, that you'd rather sweep all the issues concerning it under the rug and focus on God concepts that you don't believe exists...I get it.

But, no...both you and your position will continue to get held to the fire.

Further, modern quantum mechanics demonstrates that some physical events, at the subatomic level, happen without a specific cause. This undermines the absolute premise that nothing can begin to exist without a cause.

The whole quantum physics/virtual particles thing is an old, played out routine by atheists that has lost its effect and has been defunct for at least the past 10-15 years.

The particles doesn't pop in to being out of a state of "nothingness" in the true, literal sense...and not to mention the philosophical problems concerning, if it that were the case...why do just virtual particles pop in to being out of nothing? Why not bikes, money, or gold bars...or anything and everything?

Since when did "nothing" become so discriminatory?

Dr. Craig raised this question in the debate with Carroll, btw.

My point continues to press your assertion that "it's made for us", when I have demonstrated, time and time again, that any such 'creator', if there even IS one, did not create any of this with us humans in mind at all. Got it?

Yeah, I responded to that.

If he really thought it was a true 'problem', he would not have listed all the points in the debate. But he did, so I guess it is not a 'problem' after all. Further, he happily admits the fine-tuning argument is the best argument that theists have because it plays by the rules, but that it is still terrible.

Well, Dr. Craig didn't pull the quote out of his keister.

If Carroll said it, he said it.

Carroll probably made the statement on some small, relatively unknown platform and didn't think that Craig would be researched enough to find it.

Or, Carroll may have simply either forgot he said it, or has changed his views since he said it.

Quiz question (again):

What are these points that Caroll mentions in which you believe have been refuted?

Dude, you are filibustering.

You're the one who brought up the Craig/Carroll debate.

I assumed you watched it, so I don't need to tell you Craig responses.

If you watched it, you know. If you didn't, then shame on you. Watch it.

In here lies the impasse we reached last go-around. I wanted to make you the deal-of-the-year. 'Generic deism' true, but Christianity, however, is false. You declined. Under YOUR worldview, many body systems lack intelligent design principles, which negates your perception of ID and 'god.' I'm not even saying any god exists, but if it does, it's certainly not favoring the well-being of human beings. That's for sure.

I declined for good reason.

Any rational, common-sense being should be a deist, at worse.

Modern science is not 'out to debunk god.'

But scientists are.

But past science was out to prove god but instead failed. God was never to be found. As time rolls on, the 'god of the gaps' got ever so smaller. This is why you are reduced to the very few topics you have left, plus also the necessity to deny some of the peer reviewed science(s).

What is the history of scientists using science to prove God?

Did the urethra go through the prostate before the fall?
Was the woman's birth canal narrow before the fall?
Did a loopy larynx exist before the fall?
Were we born with an appendix before the fall?
Did we share an airway with a foodway before the fall?
Were we able to produce vitamin C before the fall?
etc etc etc etc etc.............

The Bible say that God created everything "good".

Depends on what was meant by "good".

But your god cannot exist outside nature, as nature requires time. So now what?

Nature began to exist with the beginning of the universe...meaning; something outside of nature had to produce..nature.

I never claimed he was. You brought up an argument that possessing 'contemporary evidence' gives it more veracity. Well, when I demonstrated a claim even more contemporary, you immediately pivoted and called him a liar. Well, just as you do not believe Mr. Smith's firsthand and more contemporary and less wild tale, I too (also) do not believe the anonymous secondhand and less contemporary wilder tale.

Well again, for the umpteenth time...we need sources contemporary to the standard, which is Jesus Christ and the first century apostles.

Joseph Smith and company were not contemporary to the standard...but to their own standard.

Their own standard, is not the standard.

Repeat after me..nice and slow.

"Their....standard...was...not...Jesus'...standard...and...being...contemporary...to...Jesus'...standard...is...where...any...Christian...who...values...Orthodoxy...would...like..to..be........as...opposed...to...people...living....2,000....years...later...claiming...they...saw...something."

Got it?

I deem your answer a dodgy non-answer. Yes, saying 'I don't know' is fully granted and acceptable in many cases. But not in this one. I've already laid out all the receipts, which were already established in the OP.

Oh, I get it.

My "I don't know" doesn't count because I don't have on a lab coat.

It seems that only those with lab coats gets their "I don't know" respected.

Meanwhile, "I don't know's" from anyone else (especially clergy members), gets ridiculed...pointed and laughed at.

This is cope. And I know it's uncomfortable for you. It also represents injustice, as countless children die from simply drinking water in which none of them can see as danger, as germs are "invisible". I'll ask again for earnesty this time. Since water is vital for human survival, why did god create a majority of it to be poisonous to us?

Those children receives eternal salvation with Christ.

What about you?

The probability is 1. Watch the video.

Makes no sense.

Nope. Relying upon facts and evidence, not on made up invisible sky fairies.

Ain't mad at cha.

[POI]

I need my points to be addressed, before we entertain yours.

I already have. Several times. Mindful actions require a sequencing of events, (i.e.) a "before" and "after", which inherently requires time. Only a mindless agency could possibly occupy a 'realm' outside of time. And this might as well be nothing at all. Hence, I've answered your question ad nauseum. Essentially, nothing exists outside of time. Or at least anything which would matter.

Nonsense. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause

So does the invisible sky carcass. Why? Because any mindful agency, which would include the invisible sky carcass, must 'begin to exist' if you believe time began to exist. And again, what 'created' time, would have to be mindless. And I already explained above.

You had no problem offering a "cause" of why a black widow spider eats her mate.

LOL! Venom, when I give you an answer you handwaved it. I'm damned if I do and damned if (you think) I don't.

Yeah, I responded to that.

Simply writing your given words was not a valid 'response.'

You're the one who brought up the Craig/Carroll debate.

If you watched the video, you can list Carroll's (5) points. Can you at least do that?

What is the history of scientists using science to prove God?

I read your question a couple of times but it does not make sense? Can you repeat, using different verbiage?

The Bible say that God created everything "good". Depends on what was meant by "good".

Maybe it's just anything god does is deemed 'good', no matter how silly it is?

But this does not answer my question regardless. Were all these designs created (before or after) "the fall"?

Repeat after me..nice and slow.

You either still do not get it, or you are pretending. I've explained repeatedly and I'm moving on now. As they say... You can lead a horse to water...

Oh, I get it.

No. Unfortunately, you don't.

My "I don't know" doesn't count because I don't have on a lab coat.

Nope. Your 'I don't know' doesn't count because I smell dishonesty.

Those children receives eternal salvation with Christ.

Hahahahah! The level of cope you have to dish out and to sleep better at night.... If the young'ns are dying in this manor, then I guess (good and evil) are one-in-the-same.

Makes no sense.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[SiNcE_1985]

I already have. Several times. Mindful actions require a sequencing of events, (i.e.) a "before" and "after", which inherently requires time. Only a mindless agency could possibly occupy a 'realm' outside of time. And this might as well be nothing at all. Hence, I've answered your question ad nauseum. Essentially, nothing exists outside of time. Or at least anything which would matter.

Weak sauce.

So does the invisible sky carcass.

Why? Because any mindful agency, which would include the invisible sky carcass, must 'begin to exist' if you believe time began to exist. And again, what 'created' time, would have to be mindless. And I already explained above.

Ok. Cool.

God doesn't exist...let's take the "G" word of the equation..since that is your red herring deflection.

Now, back to my original question; what can give the universe (STEM) it's beginning?

LOL! Venom, when I give you an answer you handwaved it. I'm damned if I do and damned if (you think) I don't.

When it's an answer you that you think you know...you are forthcoming.

But when it's an answer you don't know, you deflect.

Same thing you did in the KCA thread...served up nothing burgers all through the thread.

Yet, there is no evidence for God though.

If you watched the video, you can list Carroll's (5) points. Can you at least do that?

I'm not debating Carroll, I'm debating you.

I read your question a couple of times but it does not make sense? Can you repeat, using different verbiage?

I'm asking for you to shed some light on the history of scientist attempting to use science to prove God's existence.

That was your claim.

Maybe it's just anything god does is deemed 'good', no matter how silly it is?

But this does not answer my question regardless. Were all these designs created (before or after) "the fall"?

If God said it's good, then it's good.

And as I said, Biblically speaking, things began to take an ugly turn after the Fall of Man.

You either still do not get it, or you are pretending. I've explained repeatedly and I'm moving on now. As they say... You can lead a horse to water...

I agree with that saying.

Nope. Your 'I don't know' doesn't count because I smell dishonesty.

You think that I would rather not know, than know?

Hahahahah! The level of cope you have to dish out and to sleep better at night.... If the young'ns are dying in this manor, then I guess (good and evil) are one-in-the-same.

If God doesn't exist, then nothing matters anyway.

[POI]

I already have. Several times. Mindful actions require a sequencing of events, (i.e.) a "before" and "after", which inherently requires time. Only a mindless agency could possibly occupy a 'realm' outside of time. And this might as well be nothing at all. Hence, I've answered your question ad nauseum. Essentially, nothing exists outside of time. Or at least anything which would matter.

Weak sauce.

I pulled out my trusty <apologetics decoder pen>. This is code for: "Hmm, I have no viable counter response here. Back to the drawing board, again."

Ok. Cool. God doesn't exist...let's take the "G" word of the equation..since that is your red herring deflection. Now, back to my original question; what can give the universe (STEM) it's beginning?

Oh, more whining/griping and also asking the exact same question I already answered and debunked many times now... Because I'm practicing extreme patience, I'll give you the same apologist debunking response, while issuing a smaller recap of the same response.

What can give the universe (STEM) it's beginning? All I know is that it is something that does not possess a mind.

When it's an answer you that you think you know...you are forthcoming...........................

Oh, you mean like (your) "answer(s)" above?

I'm not here to give you science lessons. If I see you are way off into left field, I sometimes just let it go.

I'm not debating Carroll, I'm debating you.

I'm starting to wonder if you actually watched the video? Maybe you did, maybe you didn't? You can't list the (5) points Carroll talked about, in which Craig debunked? I don't need a massive diatribe response. Just key pneumonic devices or phrases which prove you were an actual participant. Yes, it's a test to make sure you are earnest Venom.

I'm asking for you to shed some light on the history of scientist attempting to use science to prove God's existence.

Johannes Kepler (1571–1630): The astronomer who discovered the laws of planetary motion described his work as "thinking God's thoughts after him" and explicitly sought to reveal the divine mathematical harmony of creation.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727): Newton discovered universal gravitation but wrote more on theology than physics. He believed the immense complexity of the solar system required an intelligent cause, arguing in his Principia that the precise arrangement of the planets could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent being.

Robert Boyle (1627–1691): Known for establishing modern chemistry, he authored A Free Enquiry Into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature and utilized the "watchmaker analogy". He argued that the intricate mechanisms of the natural world were evidence of a master designer, similar to how a complex clock implies a clockmaker.

Throughout the Middle Ages and Scientific Revolution, scholars frequently referred to the concept of the "Two Books". Meaning, the Book of Scripture and the Book of Nature. They believed that both were authored by the same God and that studying science was a valid, religious act that prevented them from misinterpreting the physical world.

If God said it's good, then it's good.

Aces! So, objectively poor or inept design is deemed 'good'. Got it.

And as I said, Biblically speaking, things began to take an ugly turn after the Fall of Man.

Hmm? Just one example to consider then... So birth canals were much wider before the fall?

You think that I would rather not know, than know?

I think the power of "belief preservation" is a real thing.

If God doesn't exist, then nothing matters anyway.

And apparently, it's no different if your god does.

*************************

Now let's get back to it...

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

So why does god perpetually and deliberately avoid some and not others? Your prior response of 'I don't know" has already been noted and addressed; which is why I'm offering the opportunity for you to re-answer.