(December 17, 2020 at 8:03 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 17, 2020 at 8:01 pm)Apollo Wrote: Religious or not, a claim of existence is a claim of existence that is confined within the constraints of reality/laws of nature. Show me the equations to prove that existence.

Saying something is this or not doesn’t make it so.

Your request is absurd, actually. Equations don't prove existence, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

I discussed the telological argument for God in lengthy detail in my thread, you might want to check it out;

This is the fundamental stuff everything else comes later—If something that exists that can interact with our reality then it must be made of particles and their interactions as proposed by standard model. That’s it.

Show it ain’t so and you’ll win Nobel next year!

Angels exist and one of them spoke to Mo. Show how.

(December 17, 2020 at 8:17 pm)Apollo Wrote: This is the fundamental stuff everything else comes later—If something that exists that can interact with our reality then it must be made of particles and their interactions as proposed by standard model. That’s it.

Show it ain’t so and you’ll win Nobel next year!

Angels exist and one of them spoke to Mo. Show how.

Why am I supposed to show how ? I am only supposed to prove Islam is the most tenable candidate for the right religious claim.

The fundamental stuff is the existence of God -for which there are inferential arguments. One this is proven, one religious claim must be true.

Do we agree on the latter sentence ?

(December 17, 2020 at 8:23 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 17, 2020 at 8:17 pm)Apollo Wrote: This is the fundamental stuff everything else comes later—If something that exists that can interact with our reality then it must be made of particles and their interactions as proposed by standard model. That’s it.

Show it ain’t so and you’ll win Nobel next year!

Angels exist and one of them spoke to Mo. Show how.

Why am I supposed to show how ? I am only supposed to prove Islam is the most tenable candidate for the right religious claim.

The fundamental stuff is the existence of God -for which there are inferential arguments. One this is proven, one religious claim must be true.

Do we agree on the latter sentence ?

I was going to point this out earlier, but no, that doesn't follow. You really suck at this thinking stuff.

(December 17, 2020 at 8:29 pm)Angrboda Wrote: I was going to point this out earlier, but no, that doesn't follow.  You  really suck at this thinking stuff.

So, a just God, if exists, will instruct the smallest particle to follow physical laws, but not give any guidance to entire humans ?

(December 17, 2020 at 8:23 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 17, 2020 at 8:17 pm)Apollo Wrote: This is the fundamental stuff everything else comes later—If something that exists that can interact with our reality then it must be made of particles and their interactions as proposed by standard model. That’s it.

Show it ain’t so and you’ll win Nobel next year!

Angels exist and one of them spoke to Mo. Show how.

Why am I supposed to show how ? I am only supposed to prove Islam is the most tenable candidate for the right religious claim.

The fundamental stuff is the existence of God -for which there are inferential arguments. One this is proven, one religious claim must be true.

Do we agree on the latter sentence ?

The whole premise of my original post was about angel talking to Mo and how since existence of an angel is impossible this claim false on it face—same applies to god—since it’s impossible for god to exist it’s a made up notion. How do we know this? Via cosmic and standard models.

You on the other hand claim differently and hence need to to provide the alternative models.

(December 17, 2020 at 8:32 pm)Apollo Wrote: The whole premise of my original post was about angel talking to Mo and how since existence of an angel is impossible this claim false on it face—same applies to god—since it’s impossible for god to exist it’s a made up notion. How do we know this? Via cosmic and standard models.

You on the other hand claim differently and hence need to to provide the alternative models.

Well your premise is wrong. You didn't prove that the existence of an angel is impossible. It's not impossible for something that completely contradicts the standard model to exist. Especially if God exists - for whom there are good arguments,, and we don't need models.

We can show the existence of things without providing complete models. Everyone knows gravity exists, but no good model was around until Einstein came along.

(December 17, 2020 at 8:46 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 17, 2020 at 8:32 pm)Apollo Wrote: The whole premise of my original post was about angel talking to Mo and how since existence of an angel is impossible this claim false on it face—same applies to god—since it’s impossible for god to exist it’s a made up notion. How do we know this? Via cosmic and standard models.

You on the other hand claim differently and hence need to to provide the alternative models.

Well your premise is wrong. You didn't prove that the existence of an angel is impossible. It's not impossible for something that completely contradicts the standard model to exist. Especially if God exists - for whom there are good arguments,, and we don't need models.

We can show the existence of things without providing complete models. Everyone knows gravity exists, but no good model was around until Einstein came along.

Check out the cosmological and standard model.

(December 17, 2020 at 8:46 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(December 17, 2020 at 8:32 pm)Apollo Wrote: The whole premise of my original post was about angel talking to Mo and how since existence of an angel is impossible this claim false on it face—same applies to god—since it’s impossible for god to exist it’s a made up notion. How do we know this? Via cosmic and standard models.

You on the other hand claim differently and hence need to to provide the alternative models.

Well your premise is wrong. You didn't prove that the existence of an angel is impossible. It's not impossible for something that completely contradicts the standard model to exist. Especially if God exists - for whom there are good arguments,, and we don't need models.

We can show the existence of things without providing complete models. Everyone knows gravity exists, but no good model was around until Einstein came along.

Einstein?

More proof you don't know what you are babbling about.

“ Everyone knows gravity exists, but no good model was around until Einstein came along.”

How did I miss this gem?

Typical theist "Someday something will come along that confirms my beliefs but till then I get to pretend my mystic nonsense is like gravity" Or "Till you prove that it's not true it's true " As if that's our burden.