Dear Believers, prove your god or gods is/aren't just fiction(s).

[Trek]

Here is a question for you, Trek:

Are you Jan Ardena?

NO!!!
Satisfied?

 

[Trek]

I am, in fact, handling your questions.

Maybe take more than seven minutes before responding, so you don't misspeak.

I didn’t misspeak.
And, no, you’re not handling my questions.
I would go as far as to say you are dodging them.

 

[DaveC426913]

I didn’t misspeak.

You did. You answered within seven minutes - too short a time for me to compose a thoughtful, meaningful response to your questions. You jumped to the hasty conclusion I was dodging. You were wrong.

And, no, you’re not handling my questions.
I would go as far as to say you are dodging them.

Then please review post 817. And, seriously, take a breath.

 

[DaveC426913]

I see you have been editing. OK. I hope you're not going to accuse me to dodging questions I haven't yet seen.

God is way simpler, cleaner, and effective.

Of course. Magical thinking always is. That's what makes it so alluring to those who need comfort.

Magic explains everything. Absolutely everything. We don't even need labs or telescopes; we have our answers.

The sun racing across the sky propelled by magic is much cleaner than the messy physics of gravity and orbits.

The universe being created by magic is a nice, cozy catchall answer that does nothing to explain the mechanisms, or further our understanding of our world; it does nothing but kick of the can further down the road where believers don't have to deal with it. They can just stop at "Goddidit".

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you Jan Ardena?

NO!!!
Satisfied?

I needed to get you to say it out loud - to document the denial publicly. That claim is here forever now.

 

[Pinball1970]

Black holes were theorised based on observations.

No, extensions of Newtons equations.

 

[Pinball1970]

. As is, for some, God.

Theorised? No idea, someone made something up for sure but we have no idea when or how that started.

 

[Pinball1970]

Here is a question for you, Trek:

Are you Jan Ardena?

Can you send me a link to one of Jan Ardena's threads?

 

[Trek]

You have messed up the quote feature in post 815. you still have time to repair it. I have managed to extract what you were trying to say, here:

I know. I managed to clean it up in time.

Yes. Some claims are that he doesn't exist, and therefore did not create the universe. Where is this going?

Well that is obvious.
The way you worded it sounded like you were saying that within the theist community there are varying ideas some of which claims God did not crest the universe. My bad.

OK, so you're not asking me about my opinion; you're simply asking as a segue into voicing your own opinion.

Well you said creating the universe is a pretty big deal, intimating that God creating the universe is an extraordinary claim. I’m just saying it is less extraordinary than abiogenesis.

So you believe. I would bet money that this is an unfounded belief. That, whatever evidence you feel you have that God exists, it does not extend to his use of sound - unless you count taking it on faith from the Bible.

Of course it does!
Why wouldn’t it?
Sound vibration mobilising particles into geometric shapes is a well documented physical phenomenon. Why shouldn’t it be a consideration for how God created the universe?

Since you know we don't accept the Bible as sufficient evidence of anything, this is the wrong tree you are barking up.

Maybe so, but it makes for interesting conversation, and is also very challenging g. I bet you’ve not had a Christian on here talking about sound vibration.

This is a discussion about evidence, not wishful thinking.

I think that is pretty strong evidence.
Why would you think it is wishful thinking?

Look up the definition of ordinary, then scroll down to antonyms.

Are you suggesting sound vibrations instantly mobilising particles into perfect geometric shapes, or altering the flow of water particles is not ordinary?

I think you are waffling. Get to the point, or this is a diversion tactic.

I have got right to the heart of the matter we are discussing. You should learn from me, and start explaining your concept of God and how you came to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God, and what evidence you would accept. That would make for a better conversation, instead of trying to catch me out all the time.

 

[Trek]

I needed to get you to say it out loud - to document the denial publicly. That claim is here forever now.

Why is it so important!
That’s what I don’t understand

 

[Trek]

I see you have been editing. OK.

I’m not very good at using my phone to write long pieces of texts. My fingers seemed to be to big or something.

Of course. Magical thinking always is. That's what makes it so alluring to those who need comfort.

And you don’t see that with the idea of abiogenesis?
That’s amazing!
I’ll say it again sound vibrations instantly mobilising particles into perfect geometric shapes is not magic. But I agree it looks like magic

..[/QUOTE]

 

[DaveC426913]

Well you said creating the universe is a pretty big deal, intimating that God creating the universe is an extraordinary claim. I’m just saying it is less extraordinary than abiogenesis.

The formation of all of creation, including all matter, energy and spacetime is necessarily more extraordinary than the conglomeration of a handful of existing atoms into a self-replicating configuration.

The latter is a subset of the former.

The universe can - and did - exist without life.
Life cannot - and did not - exist without the universe for it to exist in.

Of course it does!
Why wouldn’t it?
Sound vibration mobilising particles into geometric shapes is a well documented physical phenomenon. Why shouldn’t it be a consideration for how God created the universe?

That's a rationalization. Once again, it is not a phenomenon that rules out natural physics and rules in God. You are just preferring one explanation over the other.

Maybe so, but it makes for interesting conversation, and is also very challenging g. I bet you’ve not had a Christian on here talking about sound vibration.

Talking about the Bible is not interesting.
At the very least, it falls into the very weak category of evidence. if not completely dismissable. It is too full falsehoods and self-contradictions to have anything in it taken seriously.

I think that is pretty strong evidence.

You are welcome to. But it's woefully inadequate for anyone who doesn't presuppose its truthiness.

Why would you think it is wishful thinking?

Read what you wrote:
"Think what a being like God could do with sound."

I can "think about" what a unicorn could do with a bolt of purple satin, but that too is wishful thinking.

Are you suggesting sound vibrations instantly mobilising particles into perfect geometric shapes, or altering the flow of water particles is not ordinary?

I am not saying anything about that at all.

Physics is a fascinating subject. what is has to do with God is a case you still have yet to make.

I have got right to the heart of the matter we are discussing.

No, you have got to the heart of your diversion.

I've given you some free rein, with the expectation that it will give you room to provide your evidence of God. Now it's time to do so.

You should learn from me,

I haven't learned anything new that I didn't learn from you ten years ago.

and start explaining your concept of God

I only have a concept of what other people imagine it to be. And there are as many imaginative ideas as there are people on the planet. thjat; pretty damning in itself.

My personal concept of God is that it is likely a construct of superstitious minds, passing their superstition from generation to generation. We know for a fact that people do have superstitions, and the concept of a god is very consistent with human psychology. It just happens that bunch of us know that superstitions don't equal reality.

So there's mine. Where's yours?

and how you came to the conclusion that there is no evidence for God,

To be clear: I have never said there is no evidence for God.

Evidence - its strength or weakness - is essentially in the eye of the beholder, for what is really a philosophical question. (There is no objective right or wrong; there is only belief and argument).

For you, apparently, abiogenesis is evidence of God. You present that evidence to me as-such. The fact that it is easily dismissible (because abiogenesis has other explanations), doesn't mean it's not evidence - in your eyes - it just means it's dismissible evidence in the eyes of an objective person.

Maybe a primer in organic chemistry might go a ways to dispelling your incredulity about how lipids can naturally form water-repellent sacs that trap nutrients for consumption.

There are, by the way, self-replicating cycles in nature that have nothing to do with DNA. They are very simple. Just a few dozen atoms, and a short cycle of chemical reactions. The point being, self-replication is a very short jump from basic chemistry.

I can point you at them. If you're interested in learning a bit.

and what evidence you would accept.

I have given an example several times of what I would seriously consider good evidence of God's exstence.

To be clear, it is not the only evidence i would accept. I'm just pointing out that I can be convinced by, say, God showing up and doing God-like things in a objectively, repeatably, controlled way for all to examine.

That would make for a better conversation, instead of trying to catch me out all the time.

You wouldn't be constantly caught out if you didn't keep making claims you can't defend, dodging questions by responding with question instead of answers, and being infracted for calling people liars without any possible justification. You made made the bed you're lying in.

Now, I given you plenty of answers. Your turn.

- What is your idea of God, in your own words? I don't care about anyone's definition who isn't here to defend themselves.
- What evidence can you present that your God is anywhere but in your own imagination?

 

[DaveC426913]

Why is it so important!
That’s what I don’t understand

Because we went over this ten years ago. It was a waste of time then and you he got banned.

If you hope to distinguish yourself from that earlier incarantion, you'll have to stop taking every tactic right out of the same playbook.
Otherwise, every answer to every question you pose might as well be: "Asked and answered, just like ten years ago".

And I gotta tell you, that's growing old real quick.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I hope you believers are never on trial for you life and the court accepts your standard of evidence.