He Who Claims "God", Has A Moral Obligation To Produce Evidence.

I'm asking you to clarify your question. I'm reading it in the manner it which it was written, how else could I read it? If you're saying that I'm wrong in interpreting what you're asking, CORRECT ME, like I've asked you to do.

And yet you aren't able to explain how it doesn't correspond or refute my comparison. Hmm. You do realize that sentences can be worded differently and have the same meaning, right? Hell, there are even these things called synonyms, Incorporeal, which are different words that have the same meaning!

 

The question is as clear as it needs to be. If you are uncertain, then respond in the manner that you think is correct. If you are in error, then I will advise you of such. If I respond and say that you are incorrect in your response, then it is obvious that you need to put those observational skills to practice and search further by making more and more assumptions which is so common among the scientific community. Keeping searching till you find the correct answer.

There is no need for me to give explanation. I said it was incorrect, so go look for another response that MIGHT be the correct one. Is science so feeble and logic so illogical that neither can find the correct answer?

 

No thank you, I have other things to do than spend time guessing what some lonely old man who wants to waste somebody else's time.

 

So, with that admission of not wanting to seek out the truth through the usual scientific method and logical inquiry, you prefer to abandon the task. Got it. Remember, things in nature do not just arbitrarily give the scientists the answers they are looking for. The scientists have to keep on searching.

 

Using Science as the discipline for evidence of a Creator, the Copenhagen Interpretation demands that the very first elemental Wave Functions were OBSERVED by some pre-existing mechanism prior to the Big Bang beginning.

 

You are claiming that your words have been miscontrued, yet you choose not to (or simply can't) provide an alternative interpretation. Interesting.
Please demonstrate how my interpretation of your post relates to anything that's been said by "the scientific community".

It appears that you continue to be intellectually dishonest.

 

Show me a code, rule, regulation, law, statute, TOS or other document that mandates that another person must give an alternative interpretation. Uh oh... I bet you can't.

Perhaps you should do that. After all you are the one who made the statement that you made.

And your proof is what? Your opinion? Well, my opinion says just the opposite.

 

Let me get this straight... You choose to communicate a concept on a public forum in a manner that leaves it open to alleged misinterpretation, but don't care enough about communicating the concept to provide clarification?

Why are you wasting everyone's time?

Yes, I made the statement I made. Very good.
I believe you made the statement that this had something to do with something that's been said by "the scientific community"... and now you want me to clarify your statement?

This is clearly irrational. Par for the course.

My proof that your post is intellectually dishonest? There is no other rational explanation.

 

Is that first alleged statement a question or a declaration. You start that second sentence with "You choose to..." (an apparent declaration) and then you end the sentence with a question mark. Are you uncertain whether you want to make a declaratory statement or ask a question?

Wasting everyone's time? Seems that it is not wasting everyone's time... you are apparently interested in what I am saying.

Well thank you for that acknowledgment.

Sorry, but science does not work well with 'beliefs'. People believe all sorts of things and other people such as you have a very high propensity to reject beliefs. Time for me to reciprocate. Your believing is rejected.

If you say so, then I will not argue that what you stated above is irrational and Par for the course.

Oh come on. Surely your imagination is capable of coming up with some other rationalization (making excuses for your behavior). What is proof (compelling} to your mind is not necessarily (proof) compelling to my mind.

 

You've made it clear that you don't adhere to rules of logic, so allow me to explain that, to most people, a sentence ending in a question mark denotes a question.

I enjoy puzzles. Identifying what you're talking about certainly qualifies.

You've made it clear that you don't adhere to rules of logic, so allow me to explain that, to most people, eye-rolling denotes irony.

Wow, you actually made a declarative statement! Good for you.
Of course, beliefs that are based on "faith" are the only ones that don't work well with science, so your assertion is still wrong - no matter how much confirmation bias you demonstrate.

Please demonstrate how I have stated anything illogical/irrational. "I know you are but what am I?" is not the position of an intelligent adult.

The fact that there is no other rational explanation for your post is clear. The process of elimination is fairly conclusive. "compelling your mind" does not feature on my list of priorities, particularly as you've made it clear that you reject anything that doesn't confirm your bias.

 

Wow! A statement from you to you while you were looking in a mirror. Amazing.

 

It seems to me that so many people claim God and often for contradictory reasons. Some will claim that God will punish people for not take the hardline fundamentalist approach while others from another church will claim that God is only going to punish people from other faiths to pantheist who claim God will accept everybody. They can't all be right. Furthermore the more you question individuals on their beliefs about God, the more you will discover that they inextricably belive that God is on their side regardless of what their beliefs may be. You will find people in organized crime that pray, beleiving that they are good enough in Gods eyes. Countries will claim that God is on their side before they send a military into another country to cause thousands of deaths, many of them being innocent people that had no part in the war. Let's not forget fringe cults that will do everything from abusiving to killing their own members in the name of God.

Given the fact that God seems to have a million different interpetations, yes, you should be required to show some sort of proof that God is in fact on your side. Anyone can make the claim and almost everyone does when it suits their purposes.

 

More "I know you are but what am I?"...?
If that's the foundation of your argument, you may be well advised to limit your ramblings to exchanges with schoolkids.

 

Reading comprehension problem Logician0311? I previously stated "Wow! A statement from you to you while you were looking in a mirror. Amazing." and you are declaring that which I said is equivalent to "I know you are but what am I?" You see, you were asking a question whereas I made a declarative statement.

 

Punctuation aside, they equate to the same thing.
Perhaps you'd prefer that I equated your declarative statement (which was founded on nothing) to "Nuh Uh... YOU are."
In either case, your position has been reduced to childishness.

 

Well thank you for confirming that I am abiding by scripture: Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

Oh, I have never suggested that you weren't being childish enough to abide by that scripture - I simply suggested that there is no reason to believe that scripture is worth anything to anyone who isn't seeking gullible fools to fleece.

 

Who is being fleeced? This is a discussion forum and solicitation is prohibited on this forum. Are you at wits end in attempting to defeat the 'Bible'?

 

What does solicitation have to do with people being fleeced/swindled? Once again, your post makes no sense.

 

Then I will rephrase the question. Who is seeking gullible fools to be swindled/fleeced?

 

One good example would be those religious leaders who convince the gullible that the easiest way to an alleged eternal reward is to line the leaders' pockets.

 

You mean people like Richard Dawkins, Madalyn Murray O'Hair , among others who attempt to convince the gullible that there is nothing after life on this planet?

 

So people who make no promises about eternal reward being obtained by filling a collection basket are swindlers?

Please demonstrate how these folks are swindling folks in the same vein as folks like megachurch pastors who claim to believe in scriptures like Psalm 37:21, Matthew 6:19-21, Matthew 6:24, James 5:1-6, Luke 6:24, Luke 12:33, Luke 18:25, Mark 12:41-44, etc...

But, then again, you've made it abundently clear that you have no problem with hypocrisy.

 

they sell books and make speeches for profit wherein they delude the minds of gullible people... people who follow after those that are supposed to be authority figures. Isn't it nice to be able to express opinions?

 

They sell books and make speeches for profit without telling anyone "you must attend at least weekly or be banished to a pit of fire for all eternity".
Those books and speeches - by definition of the point they're making - do not claim to be "Truth" that is not subject to questioning.

Clearly, the moral equivalence you are attempting to illustrate is fallacious.