An unorthodox belief in God.

[mickiel]

Again, predictable. You appear to be completely unaware of the research in this field.

He seems to be completely unaware of sarcasm, too; and under the impression that he's succeeding at something. There are sign-language-using gorillas who show more evidence of posessing self-awareness than this man.

---

'Yet again, your evidence isn't being rejected because you haven't presented any.'--Mister Agenda

Once again:
http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/genera...l-113.html

That isn't what evidence is, as has been explained. What would actually be evidence has been explained. Yet you post the same thing.

I'm beginning to think the reason you can't recognize consciousness in certain animals is because you don't actually possess it yourself. You lack the faculties to carry on a conversation at a third-grade level (my apologies to any third-graders who may be justifiably offended by that comparison) and don't even know when you're making a fool of yourself. Even animals can be embarassed when they do something stupid, but you sail on obliviously.

---

Because creation requires a mind, the universe has none.

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires planning, the universe itself has no self or plan

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires raw beginning birth power, the universe has none

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires laws, the universe had none before it was to be

Thanks for saying something different enough to require a different answer. Laws are descriptions of how the universe behaves. They don't apply before it exists, and if the universe behaved differently, it would just have different laws.

It requires reason, the universe cannot reason of itself
It requires ingredients, the universe prior had none
It requires knowledge, the universe has no knowledge
It requires experience, the universe had no experience

All: This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires water, the universe had no water

We know how the universe got water. Learn some 5th-grade science, if you're able.

It requires matter, the universe had no matter
It requires gravity, the universe had none

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

It requires chemicals, the universe had no chemicals

We know how the universe got chemicals. Learn some 5th-grade science, if you're able.

It required power to be maintained, the universe just had no such power.

This is a claim, not evidence. If you don't support it, we are justified in dismissing it out of hand as a bare assertion.

Its academic, there must be a God!

That sentence doesn't even make sense.

---

Riddle me this, how could abundant space come from absolute nothing?

What absolute nothing? We've never claimed there was ever absolutely nothing.

As I said, its a broken record; that's not evidence
its not evidence
its not evidence
its not evidence
its not evidence!
Rehearsed and stubborn.