(December 7, 2013 at 1:18 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(December 7, 2013 at 12:21 am)snowtracks Wrote: it's abductive reasoning, it seeks to provide the most plausible broad, explanatory hypothesis but doesn't try to predict the future like inductive reasoning. for detectives - they gather evidence and develop a theory. what's your theory?

My theory, based on the evidence gathered, is that you came to the conclusion god exists and then tried to interpret the evidence in a way that allowed you to keep that conclusion, leading you to make wild, unfounded speculations like the existence of extra time dimensions. My theory says that if you want to be intellectually honest about the origins of the universe and build a working model from the ground up, the scientific evidence will lead you to the Big Bang, at which point our understanding of scientific and philosophical concepts break down, and we are left with a big, fat question mark that in no way indicates the existence of an invisible deity creating the universe with magic. What we are left with is theists putting the cart before the horse with their preconceived notions by attempting to shoehorn their god into this model with crazy conjectures and faulty philosophy.

In other words, some people, for whatever reason, either need or want a god to exist and will twist and contort the evidence in whichever way possible to fool their minds into believing they are being intellectually honest with themselves.

that need doesn't invalidate.

---

(December 7, 2013 at 10:38 am)ThomM Wrote:

(December 6, 2013 at 8:41 pm)snowtracks Wrote: if one were do the fbi profiler methodology to start with evidence and work back to the source, the God hypothesis would be a possibly since nothing would rule it out. no, it doesn't prove God, but based on the evidence the hypothesis wouldn't be eliminated. then other theories could be worked-up to be evaluated and compared.

NOPE - sorry - the problem is that YOU are attempting to substitute a "god" for a "Creator" - and those are NOT THE SAME

THere is NO need for a "god" as defined by religion as ALL EVERYTHING.
WHile it remains impossible to prove a higher power was NOT involved in the origins of the Universe - there remains NO Need for the remainder of the claims of the thiests regarding that unprovable higher power. THE Only power the "creator" would need - would be the power to initiate evolution - which science has already accepted evolution as being true.

THERE is no basis for the supernatural claims of the soul - devils - angels - hell - heaven - and the rest of the nonsense.

In fact - there is NO reason to believe that a creator STILL exists - it could have perished in the creation. AND with the need for only one power - that of creation - that eliminated the EGO MANIACAL nonsense that requires worship and adoration - which is also not supported. IF the god is perfect - it requires NO EGO support as well.

And that is where the theists have the biggest problem - connecting that possibility of a creator - to the rest of the thousands of different stories of how things happened told by different religions - because they have NO method of connecting the dots to their Fictions and MYTHS.

U. began 13.77 billion ago, not before, not after; that would indicator the creator has free will. that would indicate a personage, not something like a forming bubbly bed of hot protons.

Bullshit. The only thing that indicates is that the universe started 13.77 billion years ago.

(December 7, 2013 at 2:45 pm)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Bullshit. The only thing that indicates is that the universe [as we know it and can track it] started 13.77 billion years ago.

2¢ worth

(December 7, 2013 at 1:24 pm)snowtracks Wrote: that need doesn't invalidate.

No, your inability to validate your claim does. The need is simply the driving force behind clinging to a nonsensical claim that rests upon a faulty foundation.

(December 5, 2013 at 11:15 pm)snowtracks Wrote: i asked for some non-creations alternative ideas to explain the U.; and not one do i get. so no proofs, no evidence, and not any ideas. thought someone would be chomping at the bit to lay it on the line. probably everyone wanted to say 'nothing' but knew that wouldn't fly.
just exactly what exactly was it you saw in observation that convince you that creation wasn't correct. was it something along the road one day, or on a mountain top; or maybe it some stern aunt that was overly righteous?

There is a video here that will begin to explain alternatives.

https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php...1614548752

You might not watch this but basically there are lots of alternative suggestions as to how the universe begun.

Not one of them invoke a magic man..

(December 7, 2013 at 3:46 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(December 7, 2013 at 1:24 pm)snowtracks Wrote: that need doesn't invalidate.

No, your inability to validate your claim does. The need is simply the driving force behind clinging to a nonsensical claim that rests upon a faulty foundation.

my claim doesn't validate or invalidate. God has not been eliminated as a possible creator of the U., even you believe that as a rational person.

(December 7, 2013 at 3:59 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(December 7, 2013 at 3:46 pm)Faith No More Wrote: No, your inability to validate your claim does. The need is simply the driving force behind clinging to a nonsensical claim that rests upon a faulty foundation.

my claim doesn't validate or invalidate. God has not been eliminated as a possible creator of the U., even you believe that as a rational person.

You are absolutely right. No one has shown that the universe could not have been created by your god, the Easter Bunny, some formless deity or even the popsicle man. Your personal preference is safely hiding out in the undisprovable bullshit zone with all the rest of them. Believe what you like.

(December 7, 2013 at 3:59 pm)snowtracks Wrote: my claim doesn't validate or invalidate. God has not been eliminated as a possible creator of the U., even you believe that as a rational person.

What is possible is not necessarily probable. It is possible that I will win the lottery tomorrow, but you won't see me basing my life around that.

The fact that a claim is possible lends no credence to its validity.

(December 7, 2013 at 5:17 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(December 7, 2013 at 3:59 pm)snowtracks Wrote: my claim doesn't validate or invalidate. God has not been eliminated as a possible creator of the U., even you believe that as a rational person.

What is possible is not necessarily probable. It is possible that I will win the lottery tomorrow, but you won't see me basing my life around that.

The fact that a claim is possible lends no credence to its validity.

didn't i answer the 'claim' thing?
----------------
therefore you wouldn't buy a lottery ticket since you know the odds. okay, got it.

(December 7, 2013 at 4:10 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(December 7, 2013 at 3:59 pm)snowtracks Wrote: my claim doesn't validate or invalidate. God has not been eliminated as a possible creator of the U., even you believe that as a rational person.

You are absolutely right. No one has shown that the universe could not have been created by your god, the Easter Bunny, some formless deity or even the popsicle man. Your personal preference is safely hiding out in the undisprovable bullshit zone with all the rest of them. Believe what you like.

Popsicle man? The Easter Bunny? No way, Bernie the Alien created the universe.