(April 28, 2014 at 7:19 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the error the atheist make is a presuppositional belief that the future- discovery-gap will explain things; if the supernatural is ruled out before the investigation, that's a belief not an argument. additionally, science has limited range. for instance: the question, does good ultimately prevail over evil?

Reading your posts is like watching a Sarah Palin interview.

You're just so pround and confident in your ignorance.

(April 21, 2014 at 8:20 am)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 12:36 am)whateverist Wrote: Tedious blowhard.

It is sad to see that the Lord's longsuffering and patience for man to repent and accept His free gift is often rejected due to a hard heart. God's plan is perfect.

And which plan would that be Rev?
The one he had before Adam and Eve ate the apple or the one he came up with after he tossed them out of the garden?

(April 29, 2014 at 6:02 am)Tonus Wrote:

(April 28, 2014 at 7:19 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the error the atheist make is a presuppositional belief that the future- discovery-gap will explain things; if the supernatural is ruled out before the investigation, that's a belief not an argument. additionally, science has limited range. for instance: the question, does good ultimately prevail over evil?

But that's just it-- we have plenty of examples of scientific discoveries that explained things we did not know or understand, and not a single one of them involved supernatural beings or forces. None. Not a one. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The next discovery that we can directly attribute to god --or any other supernatural force or being-- will be the first. Based on that track record, why would you claim that the atheist is making the error in expecting that trend to continue?

here's a hypothetical question: if the biblical God has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

(April 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 6:02 am)Tonus Wrote: But that's just it-- we have plenty of examples of scientific discoveries that explained things we did not know or understand, and not a single one of them involved supernatural beings or forces. None. Not a one. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The next discovery that we can directly attribute to god --or any other supernatural force or being-- will be the first. Based on that track record, why would you claim that the atheist is making the error in expecting that trend to continue?

here's a hypothetical question: if the biblical God has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

That's an excellent question. I can't think of anything either.

Well for a start, consider this. There's a reason the question had to be framed as an hypothetical and hung from an "if". Bonus points if you can tell us what that reason is.

Here's a nice 1am hypothetical: if all gods from all mythologies are man made, is there any phenomenon which must be explained by the existence of a god?

(April 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 6:02 am)Tonus Wrote: But that's just it-- we have plenty of examples of scientific discoveries that explained things we did not know or understand, and not a single one of them involved supernatural beings or forces. None. Not a one. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The next discovery that we can directly attribute to god --or any other supernatural force or being-- will be the first. Based on that track record, why would you claim that the atheist is making the error in expecting that trend to continue?

here's a hypothetical question: if the biblical God has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

If absolved of the need to demonstrate what I said to actually be true, then I too can with extraordinary ease come up with something that seem to explain everything to those as perceptive as you. But I am better than what you imagined to have been your god, so I won't lead you by the nose.

(April 29, 2014 at 6:57 pm)snowtracks Wrote:

(April 29, 2014 at 6:02 am)Tonus Wrote: But that's just it-- we have plenty of examples of scientific discoveries that explained things we did not know or understand, and not a single one of them involved supernatural beings or forces. None. Not a one. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

The next discovery that we can directly attribute to god --or any other supernatural force or being-- will be the first. Based on that track record, why would you claim that the atheist is making the error in expecting that trend to continue?

here's a hypothetical question: if the biblical God have existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of their creations?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

If the Pastifarian God has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of His Noodly Appendage?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

If Xuchilbara and Lobsel Vith have existence as the offspring of The Holy Mother Samael, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of creation?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

If the Siva has existence, is there any scientific phenomenon that couldn't be explained as being a product of Siva banging on a drum, and accidentally creating the universe?
i personally didn't come with anything, but maybe you can.

(April 29, 2014 at 8:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Well for a start, consider this. There's a reason the question had to be framed as an hypothetical and hung from an "if". Bonus points if you can tell us what that reason is.

guess you guys didn't come with anything. looks like God's existence is therefore the default position. but maybe soneone will come with something so the question is still active.

(April 29, 2014 at 11:17 pm)snowtracks Wrote: looks like God's existence is therefore the default position.

False.

If there is no evidence for the existence of something, then the default position is rationally that it does not exist.

Only theists with their twisted concepts of ill logic attempt to make the absurd claim that something must exist despite the lack of evidence for its existence.