How can I be angry with an entity that doesn't exist?

No not at all! Its more like, but not exactly the same as deductive reasoning. That is 'If all of the possible hypotheses are eliminated except for one, then that hypothesis, no matter how unlikely, is (probably) the correct hypothesis' . Thats only one reason, there are others such as; When the evdience fits the atturbites of what is known as God. Why not call it God? Its because God is a hated concept and even if its just as likley to be God secular types will not admit it, choosing emotion over truth (I suppose I should say in most cases because I chose God when the evdience supported it).

reva

 

It seems to me a not entirely unreasonable idea that there could be some sort of master mind out there though, the evidence does of course not fit the god described in the bible.

Oh, and really, dont speak for others svp, your "it is because
'god' is a hated concept" surely could only apply to a very small number of people, if anyone.

 

Surely....you are not attempting to use Occoms razor as a reason to accept the God hypothesis. And, one is left to wonder how "All possible hypothesis" can be eliminated before they are understood in the first place?

 

There is no reason to argue my point if you will only accept your type of evidence. That is like saying to a prosecutor we will not allow you to use eye witness or forensic evidence you may use only circumstantial evidence. Demanding empirical evidence only shows the seculars have a weak argument.

Lol that tells me you know little of the cosmological/ontological arguments! The KCA, is a cosmological argument that relies on a logical syllogism for its core inference. And the KCA has been challenged but never been defeated. Its only one leg in many that buttress my paradigm or world view (ie that God exists).

Consider what I say with an open mind or I may find you simple is more like it. God is my answer because as I have said the evdience is better for God than for other explanations. God desinged the singularity to produce a universe the produced the four forces of nature etc.

I have been asked that many times. You are basing your question on an misunderstanding of what the Law of Cause and Effect claims concerning the Universe. The law states; ’ ‘every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause. The God of the Bible is a spiritual Being (John 4:24) and therefore is not governed by physical law‘.

Here is additional paste that I sized; Recall also what Professor W.T. Stace wrote in A Critical History of Greek Philosophy concerning causality. “[E]verything which has a beginning has a cause” (1934, p. 6, emp. added). As mentioned above, scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (see Miller, 2007).] However, God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Psalm 90:2 says concerning God, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God” (emp. added). The Bible describes God as a Being who has always been and always will be—“from everlasting to everlasting.” He, therefore, had no beginning. Hebrews 3:4 again states, “every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God,” indicating that God is not constrained by the Law of Cause and Effect as are houses, but rather, is the Chief Builder—the Uncaused Causer—the Being who initially set all effects into motion. The point stands. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model.

That is enough for one post eh? I will answer the rest asap.

reva

 

It is their only way of coping with the fact that you do not believe in their deity. So, you must be rebelling against the deity.

LOL

Yes, lacking common sense. They are so fixated and indoctrinated in their beliefs, that they cannot imagine living without a religion. So then they throw out silly things like atheism, or science, or evolution being some sort of religion. However the parameters used by them to define religion would make any sort of sport, club, or movie a religion.

Just silliness all the way around.

 

How is relying on empirical evidence a weak argument? I've asked you before, with no reply, about what other kind of evidence you're talking about besides empirical evidence.

Okay, then go ahead and explain how the premises are true, and how you know them to be true.

And what evidence is that?

That isn't what I am asking. I am asking you how something existing out of time can be the cause of anything since causation requires time. I also asked how this eternal being somehow created something out of nothing. By your own admission this violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Quote mining doesn't support your argument.

Except that the above mentioned quote is, in context, dealing with things that are already existing and acting upon each other. Quote mining, i.e. deceit.

Citing an apologetics article by a biomechanical engineer doesn't do you any good either, especially when we are dealing with cosmology. If you're going to pretend to invoke science, cite a peer reviewed study, not a biased website seeking to prove God.

 

No Occam's razor may be similar in some aspects but not nearly same as deductive reasoning/logic. Occam's Razor is a way of reasoning that says the simplest answer is most often the correct answer. Lastly as you point out it would be impossible to consider all the theories and such for various reasons. The way I came to goddidit is that its at least equally as reasonable as say the metaverse theory which is a theory that is an offshoot of M theory which is an offshoot of string theory (lol) postulate the universe is infinitely large and 'contains' infinite parallel or many universes and none having a beginning. String theory birthed that whole mess. Now that takes more faith than religion ever would because all possible things that can happen are or will or already have happened, and that includes elves, unicorns, a world where Hitler won WW2, or a world where the jews gassed the nazis, nothing is too silly. Hmm' one universe must have God as a creator and one that has Satan as a creator its madness really, especially since to date no version of string theory has ever made an experimentally verifiable prediction. See also MWT.

Yep madness that ~ and it's the darling of the cutting edge secular science.

reva

 

Spoken like you are from the Smokey Mountains of Tennessee.
Fine spirits where you're from.

 

Very well, we are each entitled to our own way of thinking. I simply cannot ignore Data in preference of blind acceptance.

 

I have to agree! No debate on that one. Moonshine never really went away. It was less popular for a while in the hippy daze (from what I was told) and so a lot of moonshiners began growing herbals with their distilling activities. They went hand in hand, the majority of old timers and new timers have gardens that would make the editor of home and garden get a woodie. All that and they were in the deep forest to make shine so there is millions of near impassable national forest acres on the border of east TN and western NC.

So over the years they became experts in the complex art of plant genetics and even have a few strains named after the region where they are grown, or named after a favorite hound dog. And the spirits? There is a reason shine is called mountain LSD! Lol…One bit of advice for anyone that has a taste for white lighting; Never buy from anyone that will not allow you to see the still or that you know as good as your mother. There still is a lot of dangerous stills producing toxic stuff, and that value the dollar more than their own mommas health. Oh the herbs need no warnings let the buyer beware.

reva

 

Thank you, at least you are a live and let live sorta' guy. However and with all respect due, I have presented evidence for a creator while you have posted none to either refute my evidences, or to support your own conclusions.
In addition your lack of evidence against a creator combined with the above considerations demonstrate that you may be holding on to unsupportable beliefs. I hope that the weight of evidence for a universe that began via a cause will with time ease your personal optometric’ aberration.


reva

 

I must have missed the evidence presented for a creator entity, though speculation and hypothesis abound. Expecting someone to prove a negative is not constructive and generally considered a futile form of debate, as it cannot be accomplished. As I have not provided you with my beliefs, and instead watched as you created them for me, it is likely any unsupportable beliefs you have noted were imagined by your own mind as belonging to me.
If I am incorrect in this observation perhaps you might clarify the beliefs you think I hold?

 

Whoever can produce evidence that god exists without a cause should be able to handle proving that the universe had a cause and a beginning.

 

Equality is not observed by the fool that fears a 'god'.

 

Has any version of religion ever presented an experimentally verifiable prediction?
Don't forget, experimentally.
If not, where is the knock on string theory compared to your own theological theory?

 

Now, this is a story from an Indian reservation that voted itself dry. But they had not really figured out their laws, and one guy started a church, they expected a 40 dollar donation, and would give the seeker a bottle of Canadian Club.

Any predictions they made probably did come true.

 

They dont know there is no God , they just think there is no God . They're angry because they're not sure if there is a God or not , they usually try to prove there is no God but they cant , and this position make them crazy .

 

How would anyone know whether or not he was "truly" doing that?

You think that can be accomplished by trying?

 

Who cares if there is a God? Humanity has stopped worshiping thousands that people swore were real. We are stuck with the current gang because of 24/7/365 propaganda.

 

We are not angry because we are uncertain of anything. We are angry with idiot believers who want creationism taught in schools.


We have never tried to prove there is no god. We just know there is no proof that there is one despite some hilarious attempts by the gullible to do so.

 

Nobody knows if there is a god, tho some think there is / are any of many of them. They all think they got it right.

Nobody in his right mind tries to prove there is a god, tho the number of times the goddists try to prove it
suggests they were crazy before, or that goddism made them crazy.

Some of them say things like They're angry because they're not sure if there is a God or not , they usually try to prove there is no God but they cant , which is simply made up out of thin air, and of course, not true.

It is characteristic of fundies, and many other goddists, to make things up. This behaviour may be a result of
dishonest people being attracted to religion, or perhaps the habit of belief in nonsense confuses their sense of right and wrong.

 

I'm not angry at all. Well, maybe I'm a bit angry with the very worst of the lot, like suicide bombers and Wetboro Baptists. But generally speaking I'm not prone to crazed anger at all.