Subsequent truths

[5thHorseman]

I doubt it, That is one fuck awful post.

[Phaedra]

It is. And it's not getting better. My ability to type coherent sentences is devolving accordingly, though.

[fr0d0]

There is no reason for god to exist unless you suppose there MUST be a creator. That is just your supposition, not a logical reason for him to exist.

If the supposition results in the only logical conclusion that works, wouldn't that be that reason?

The one thing agreed upon here is that there is no verifiable evidence for god. How does it follow then that believing is the reasonable position?

Because verifiable evidence isn't the only kind of evidence.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Verifiable evidence is the only evidence that will make something an accepted truth.

What you are saying is that your acceptable evidence required to believe something to be true is much lower than that of a skeptic. I only hope I'm never in court with you or any of your xtian chums in in the jury.

As for your first point which answers my point - don't care, it's just becoming meaningless meaningless tit for tat again.

---

What is your take on dark matter and dark energy, mine is that science claims that it exists, yet there is no valid evidence for either, it is no more than primitive man trying to explain something they do not understand, that would be God. So what kind of logic is it that would believe in dark matter and energy.

So you accept that primitive man trying to explain something he didn't understand as god?

Yet you believe in this god? Are you fucking retarded?

[chadster1976]

Norfolk: to state there is no reason for a creator is no more valid than saying that you believe there is one. Extrapolate logically...

Why do I believe in God? I just do.
If there is no Creator, where did the universe come from? It just is.
Both positions eventually come down to an argument about which we currently can provide no scientific answer. This is where we must leave science and this is where our philosophies and ideologies guide our thinking. You stating there is no evidence of and no necessity for a God may be true, but the leap to say that he therefore does not exist is an unsupported belief, in exactly the same way that you say my belief is unsupported. The difference at present is that you say my belief is wrong and yours is not, whereas I say both are valid and I will hold mine until proven otherwise.

Saying something isn't true or is impossible just because you haven't observed it is a very closed-minded view of the universe. How would we have developed then refined atomic and then quantum theory? If there is one thing we should learn from human endeavour it is that the impossible is only supported by a lack of imagination.

[IATIA]

Sounds like "Pascal's Wager" to me.

[downbeatplumb]

My book as you put it (actually belongs to all who want it) is the #1 seller every year. Move made.

---

This from wikipedia

Religious books, especially the Bible and the Qur'an, are probably the most-printed books, but it is nearly impossible to find reliable sales figures for them. Print figures are missing or unreliable since these books are produced by many different and unrelated publishers. Furthermore, many copies of the Bible and the Qur'an are printed and given away free, instead of being sold. The same goes for some political books, such as the works of Mao Zedong or Adolf Hitler. Thus it is impossible to determine either the number printed, or the proportion of those printed that are sold. All such books have been excluded from this list for those reasons.

So it is impossible to get sales figures for the babble, yet you claim it is the number 1 best seller.

You spout opinion as though it is fact often dont you.

[5thHorseman]

Also the least read book that doubles up as a paperweight.

[Erinome]

We call bibles "kindlin" in my house.

[Norfolk And Chance]

Norfolk: to state there is no reason for a creator is no more valid than saying that you believe there is one. Extrapolate logically...

Why do I believe in God? I just do.

Automatically, you're on the back foot.

If there is no Creator, where did the universe come from?

The big bang. Next question is where did the big bang come from? From something that was there before? From nothing? From a creator? Those are the three options. And the brutal truth is we can't know.

The trouble is theists want to have a certain answer, and insert a creator into that gap. I see no reason why a creator is more likely than the other two options, thus I see no reason to believe that it MUST be a creator. Subsequently this creator is supposed to co - exist with us until this day, yet there is no evidence to support that. The logical answer to "where did the universe come from?" is "I don't know", rather than "well it MUST be a creator"

If it WAS a creator, then who created the creator, and who created who created the creator? And where did that come from? Theistic answer - the creator just is. Equally the universe could just "be". No solid reason for a creator.

Or you could even go into major brain strain mode and postulate there was something before the big bang, and something before that, and something before that - for infinity! Trouble is, infinity has neither a start nor an end so you couldn't go back far enough to find a creator.

The answer to the universe, can only be "don't know", "we can only go back as far as the big bang", realistically. If a creator is ever proven then we can insert it into the equation as the cause.

Both positions eventually come down to an argument about which we currently can provide no scientific answer.

We can actually say scientifically that there was a big bang which was the cause of the universe, theists want a cause of the cause, as I tried to illustrate.

This is where we must leave science and this is where our philosophies and ideologies guide our thinking. You stating there is no evidence of and no necessity for a God may be true, but the leap to say that he therefore does not exist is an unsupported belief

But it isn't a leap though, it isn't an unsupported belief. It is a non belief in YOUR unsupported belief.

in exactly the same way that you say my belief is unsupported. The difference at present is that you say my belief is wrong and yours is not, whereas I say both are valid and I will hold mine until proven otherwise.

They are polar opposites, you have an unsupported belief, I do not have a belief. These are not two beliefs that you can stick into a box and label as "both valid" because they are not the same thing.

I'll further quantify that a non belief that something exists because there is no evidence to support it is logically valid, whilst a belief that something exists with no evidence to support it is logically invalid. How can you claim that an unevidenced belief is valid? It is a belief and nothing more. Fine, have your belief but don't try and claim there is any validity in it.

Saying something isn't true or is impossible just because you haven't observed it is a very closed-minded view of the universe. How would we have developed then refined atomic and then quantum theory?

I'm sure that scientists who refine quantum theory have established workable, testable theories that would produce certain results - I'm no expert on quantum theory. Are you? You seem to use it enough as a sort of joker card...

If there is one thing we should learn from human endeavour it is that the impossible is only supported by a lack of imagination.

Illogical statement.

I'd say it is impossible for you to turn into a whicker basket right now, and it isn't impossible because I haven't got enough imagination. It is just impossible. We both know this.

So please retract your last comment as a silly statement or untruth.

PS all the imagination in the world won't make god real, or even 0.000000000000000001% more possible.