God and the dilemma with unfalsifiability

[Cyberman]

"None of which I am going to list here. Merely mentioning the fact is enough for me to pretend that I invalidated the argument."

[Godscreated]

You would be jumping for joy if it were an incurable cancer that just went away over night. As for Hitchins that's just his opinion because he can't disprove God and needed a confidence trick to fool his followers. 

Evidence required that incurable cancer went away over night. Or is this yet another assertion that is indistinguishable from fantasy?

It was a what if thing, something atheist seem to get off on.

Here's the stupid question again, you need to get over it. God refers to himself as male. Mt. 5:16, Mt. 5:48, Mt. 6:1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 18, 26, 32. I'll stop here if you can't accept this then we have nothing further to say on the subject. This is what God the son says and the Father also called Jesus the Son encase you do not understand son is a male term.

 

Now explain away the absurdity of having only one thing of its kind that has ever existed being defined as male and how whatever characteristics it has cannot also be described as being female.

Take it up with God, I've explained it to you in the simplest of ways and yet that critical thinking of yours has let you down again.

God created all that exists, read the Genesis narrative. There is no evidence of the big bang nor evolution, evolution is impossible without new information being added to DNA and there is no mechanism for that to happen, seems the evolutionary scientist love to skip over this bit. The big bang is under question by the scientific world.

So more empty assertions with no evidence.

The theory of the Big Bang and theory of evolution would not  still be around were it not for scientific evidence. The Big Bang is still the dominant theory in the scientific world. Again ... assertions with no evidence. You do not understand the scientific method. Nor do you understand evolution. Mutation adds information to the DNA.

There an evolutionary scientist has now explained it to you.

They are both around for a couple of reasons, money and the evolutionary scientist control what papers are accepted to be published, a monopoly that's afraid of creation science because they know it to be true.

 
You are really full of questions yet you do not ever accept  an answer. 

You never provide an answer. Just empty assertions.

I've provided answers and you just ignore them or make assertions about them with no evidence. It's not me who presents empty assertions.

Since you do not believe in God I expect such a statement from you, being so you are not qualified to make such a statement and represent it as truth, it's nothing but an opinion you give to please the other atheist.

That's circular reasoning. It also can be turned back on you. You're not a believer in Allah so you're not qualified to say that the Muslims are correct in that you are wrong and not worshiping the correct god.

I do not need to be a Muslim to know that Allah nor any other god is false. God said there are no other gods but Me. Since God is omniscient we have no reason to question what He says.

We'd also have never left the caves with that attitude. Progress has come about because of the scientific method (which you do not understand). The modern world is testament to it working. The scientific method works by questioning what we don't know.

  Most people did not live in caves and those that did came out long before there was a scientific method. The modern world has come a long ways because of science, yet science is what will destroy this world, global warming may already be at a point of no return and nuclear weapons are only a button away from being deployed and once deployed there is no getting them back, science may not have intentionally created global warming yet it is still responsible.

GC

[I_am_not_mafia]

So more empty assertions with no evidence.

The theory of the Big Bang and theory of evolution would not  still be around were it not for scientific evidence. The Big Bang is still the dominant theory in the scientific world. Again ... assertions with no evidence. You do not understand the scientific method. Nor do you understand evolution. Mutation adds information to the DNA.

There an evolutionary scientist has now explained it to you.

They are both around for a couple of reasons, money and the evolutionary scientist control what papers are accepted to be published, a monopoly that's afraid of creation science because they know it to be true.

Yeah it's called peer review. It means that papers need to reach a minimum standard in order to be accepted. For example, assertions need to be backed up by evidence. A difficult concept for you I know.

If creationists could provide evidence for creation science then they  would be able to publish papers stating it. But they can't. For example I'm not employed to research artificial intelligence at the moment, and the research I do in my spare time is at odds with the predominant paradigm that most follow. Yet I still publish papers because I back it up with evidence.

What's more evolutionary science is actually useful. Not only are the theories backed up by evidence but they work in practice. This would not be the case if it was incorrect. I personally use it almost every day of my life. There has been no useful application of the belief that everything was created.

And it's only non-scientists that think that you make lots of money as a scientist.

Since you do not believe in God I expect such a statement from you, being so you are not qualified to make such a statement and represent it as truth, it's nothing but an opinion you give to please the other atheist.

I do not need to be a Muslim to know that Allah nor any other god is false. God said there are no other gods but Me. Since God is omniscient we have no reason to question what He says.

You are a hypocrite.

[Harry Nevis]

Your pro tip sucks for many reasons.

GC

And I'm sure you do, too.

[ignoramus]

Whatev, you're in the bad books now!
He's muttering some evil incantations for you soul as he pulls out the ouija board!
You do know that he's got both God and the debil on speed dial on that right!?

I personally would never get into a serious argument with a god lover.
I just can't know how many fully automatic firearms he may be hoarding... They're already on the edge of sanity as it is.

Why risk it...

[Cyberman]

But is he muttering at the floor, the wall or the ceiling? Come on, GC, what's your architecture of choice?

[Edwardo Piet]

God does isn't an illusion it is real and unexplainable.

God isn't real.

[Astonished]

God does isn't an illusion it is real and unexplainable.

God isn't real.

Wouldn't being explainable (even in the most minimal degree) usually be a requirement for existence? Otherwise how could it be confirmed to exist?

[Edwardo Piet]

God isn't real.

Wouldn't being explainable (even in the most minimal degree) usually be a requirement for existence? Otherwise how could it be confirmed to exist?

No being explainable isn't a requirement for existence

[Astonished]

Wouldn't being explainable (even in the most minimal degree) usually be a requirement for existence? Otherwise how could it be confirmed to exist?

No being explainable isn't a requirement for existence

Such as? Example? And we're not talking about something that we just don't understand YET, we're talking about this eternally unknowable and unexplainable brouhaha (which begs the question, how the fuck do we know anything about it, i.e. whether it exists, if it's like that? Or how do we even know it's unexplainable or unknowable?)