Big Bang Theory

[jonb]

@Truth Matters

I afraid, you are using parts to justify your stance and ignoring those parts that don't fit. This is essentially woolly thinking. It is that old adage of if I shoot an arrow in the air when I am on a chariot where does it fall, well its so obvious I don't have to test it. This is not a scientific approach. You are trying to combine two things which do not fit together, I don't even mind you trying to do it, but You cannot use it to make assertions if you have failed to show how it can be combined. And your posts so far have been nothing but assertions.

To make an assertion god made it, is fine, deluded, but fine, but to say god made it here you have to have evidence for, whether it be six thousand years ago or at the big bang, and there is no evidence for either of those propositions.

[Truth Matters]

@Truth Matters

I afraid, you are using parts to justify your stance and ignoring those parts that don't fit. This is essentially woolly thinking. It is that old adage of if I shoot an arrow in the air when I am on a chariot where does it fall, well its so obvious I don't have to test it. This is not a scientific approach. You are trying to combine two things which do not fit together, I don't even mind you trying to do it, but You cannot use it to make assertions if you have failed to show how it can be combined. And your posts so far have been nothing but assertions.

To make an assertion god made it, is fine, deluded, but fine, but to say god made it here you have to have evidence for, whether it be six thousand years ago or at the big bang, and there is no evidence for either of those propositions.

You have demonstrated nothing about my argument that is inconsistent or woolly. You merely claim it with empty assertions.

I have presented just one of the many potent evidences for God (touching on two with Fine Tuning). You IGNORE the evidence, but have not defeated anything in the slightest - nor have you demonstrated any plausible alternatives to the evidence. Now you claim that no evidence exists?

Sorry, but your faith that Materialism can account for the absolute beginning of Physics is sub-rational. I have a fully rational, sufficient and coherent causal agency. You have nothing but hollow protests that have no merit.

The irony is that you call me 'deluded' as a pejorative, yet your Atheism reduces mind to nothing but chemically induced delusion. You have no other logical possibilities available to explain mind.

Logic matters

[LastPoet]

Are you real?

[Truth Matters]

Are you real?

Yep, last time I checked. Of course, if Atheism were true, I may just be a subjective chemical delusion created in your mind, with no objective reality. You really can't be sure what subjective chemical delusions you ought to experience as 'your mind'. You certainly can't test it scientifically, because even the rules of science would be nothing more than the deliverances of chemical delusions.

[Annik]

Bitches don't know about my agnostic atheism. Lol

We understand your excuses perfectly. You are Atheist until you are asked for evidence and arguments to defend your belief position, then you hide behind Agnosticism, trying to exempt yourself from any burden to justify your Atheist belief position.

You really think this is my first rodeo with Atheism? You really think I'm naive to the sophistry and phony definitions Atheists employ?

No, I'm am 99% sure that there is no god, but there is no way for me to be completely certain of it.

You're not being scientific. You're starting out with the idea of a god and you start plugging it into the Big Bang Theory. Then you shit in your hand and fling it when we tell you that isn't how it works. There is no evidence to suggest a god was responsible for the beginnings of the universe. Instead of accepting the scientific community's ideals on it at large and waiting for it to suss out exactly what is the most likely reasoning, you cling to your book of warped fables.



Also, I think you need a nap. Toddlers after get cranky without one.

[Cyberman]

It's worse than that. He's following the Kalam(itous) model, which massages the terms of the problem such that not only a god but God is defined into existence. I'm sure I could concoct any number of scenarios in which I win every argument, as long as I get to define what the rules should be.

[Truth Matters]

We understand your excuses perfectly. You are Atheist until you are asked for evidence and arguments to defend your belief position, then you hide behind Agnosticism, trying to exempt yourself from any burden to justify your Atheist belief position.

You really think this is my first rodeo with Atheism? You really think I'm naive to the sophistry and phony definitions Atheists employ?

No, I'm am 99% sure that there is no god, but there is no way for me to be completely certain of it.

You're not being scientific. You're starting out with the idea of a god and you start plugging it into the Big Bang Theory. Then you shit in your hand and fling it when we tell you that isn't how it works. There is no evidence to suggest a god was responsible for the beginnings of the universe. Instead of accepting the scientific community's ideals on it at large and waiting for it to suss out exactly what is the most likely reasoning, you cling to your book of warped fables.



Also, I think you need a nap. Toddlers after get cranky without one.

Obviously, 100% certainty is not necessary for justified belief.
Almost nothing can be 100% proven. Is this news to you?

You now CLAIM you have a BELIEF position of 99% certainty that no God exists.
That is a claim. All claims require justification. Where is your evidence and arguments to justify that claim?

I gave evidence for my belief. You have none

[Annik]

It's very simple: I don't know if a god exists, but until evidence is presented to me that he/she/it does, I will be an atheist. And you haven't given any evidence for yourself, you've just claimed that science is wrong.

[Truth Matters]

It's worse than that. He's following the Kalam(itous) model, which massages the terms of the problem such that not only a god but God is defined into existence. I'm sure I could concoct any number of scenarios in which I win every argument, as long as I get to define what the rules should be.

1) The KCA is not meant as a stand alone proof. It's one piece of evidence in a comprehensive case.

2) The KCA is meant to prove the necessity of those attributes historically attributed to God: Immaterial, Timeless (eternal) and spaceless, enourmous capacity.

3) You are trying to make a vice out of having a fully sufficient and plausible causal agency, when you have no possibility of any sufficient explanation of the absolute physical beginning confirmed by science.

---

It's very simple: I don't know if a god exists, but until evidence is presented to me that he/she/it does, I will be an atheist. And you haven't given any evidence for yourself, you've just claimed that science is wrong.

Then you are merely Agnostic? You have no position on whether or not God exists?

You are not entitled to call yourself an Atheist, then hide behind agnosticism to avoid any intellectual burden to justify your Atheist belief. That's just intellectual laziness and sophistry. You need a justification. Otherwise, your position is slop.

Of course, that's your actual problem. Your belief position is unjustified slop that you fail to defend in arguments evidence or reason.

I'm glad I can justify Thiesm in arguments, evidence and reason. I don't need sophistry to avoid accountability like you Atheists.

BTW I don't claim Science is wrong. I'm claiming science is correct. I'm claiming Atheism is wrong. Oh, the irony.

[popeyespappy]

Still waiting on evidence that ties your god to the big bang.