One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

All I hear is *twist, twist, twist*. That's what your words are doing with your evidence. This is dishonesty at its finest, and I'm afraid that anything I say will be either misconstrued, tossed aside, or formatted to fit your own erroneous arguments. No thank you. When you want to prove that your god exists and you're ready to begin with that, then you know where to find me.

Statler takes the time to write an in depth response to each one of BWS’s points.
BWS’s responds with…”Nuh uh!”

Nice.

I think I am just tired of conversing with delusional, anti-scientific people.

Me too.

It never gets anywhere as they just don't listen, they refuse to understand or use the scientific method or any critical thinking, and they believe in a magic universe.

The scientific method? You mean the method of inquiry that was established by a creationist? We use that. In fact, such a method would be impossible if God didn’t exist. What do you mean by magic?

So long Godschild, Drich, ronedee, Statler, and your ilk.

So long? I do not think I’ve ever debated you; conceding defeat prior to the debate does not seem like a great strategy for success.

When you've read a book or two and have something intelligent to say, we can converse.

There are more books out there than just, “The God Delusion” and “God Is Not Great.” You do not seem to realize that.

You have shown no ability to carry on an intelligent dialogue so far.

Considering the fact that you adhere to a view of reality that completely undermines our ability to reason I’d be a bit worried if you thought I was carrying on an intelligent conversation to be completely honest.

There are so many others here well-equipped to counter your bullshit, but you won't listen to them either.

Really? Like who?

I can just not be arsed anymore.

Since I do not recall ever debating with you, I cannot say that I’ll miss you.

Then they accuse us of not listening. I'm not a fan of playground tactics.

I am not accusing you of not listening, I think you did listen and that is precisely why you have chosen not to respond. People tend to know when they’re beat.

That's what I love about those who try to shoehorn mythology into a scientific context in order to find a justification for convincing themselves and others it's a true representation of history. With one hand they point to a patchwork quilt of garbled scientific facts knitted together haphazardly, trying to rationalise things like the interior capacity of the ark, the number of animals aboard, the source of the floodwater etc; which is all well and good except their other hand clutches an escape rope labelled "God". Try it out - see how far into the rationalisation you can get before they pull that magic rope. We could make it a competition.

This only proves that you’re beat either way. You are unable to scientifically question the flood story because from a scientific standpoint it’s completely feasible, and then even if it weren’t there could always be a supernatural element to it. Either way, scripture wins the debate. What is actually bewildering is the fact that you would still reject the flood account all the time while possessing this knowledge. It really is the intellectual equivalent of burying your head in the sand.

Saying "Science exists, therefore god" simply does not compute the way you think it does, SW. God must be proven first.

No, that proves God exists. If “A” requires the existence of “B” in order to be possible, and “A” is possible then “B” must also exist. It’s a completely valid proof. Science requires God in order to be possible, science is possible (as we both agree), therefore God must exist.

In order for seeing to be possible, light must exist. Seeing is possible, therefore light exists.

Let's just visualise that for a moment. Thousands of wild carnivorous animals ranging from snakes to lions and tigers, all cooped up in an extremely confined space and forced to eat a vegetarian diet - and then in comes Noah and his tasty family. Yep, this was a good plan.

Have you ever even read the Biblical account of the flood? If so, then why are you assuming typical animal behavior tendencies when the account makes it clear the animals’ natural behaviors were altered?

I was an Elder in the Mormon Church. That's a step above Priest

Being a priest requires an education.