Stump the Christian?

[dyresand]

There's a shitload of intellectual dishonesty in here. If you're honest with your approach you have no grounds for denying anybody's claims about anything; whether it be other religions, Sasquatch, homeopathy, etc. Just because it can be imagined does not necessarily mean it's possible.

I am not trying to prove anything here. All I can do is compare other religious to my list of 8 and see how they stack up. If another religions takes into account my list and theorizes a different scenario, I would also consider that religion reasonable. Again, not true, just reasonable.

You are intellectually dishonest and you refuse to learn. Evolution is solid fact we have a common ancestor. The fact being you would
rather using straw mam and even apologist tactics show how dishonest christianity and religion is in general. You are not helping 
religion at all. You are for the most part would be a laughing stock in the EU and RU. Because we tried telling you that you are wrong and 
here is why you never wanted to bother really reading it and tried to worm your way around it. 

[Anima]

I am sorry.  Are you trying to provide a definition for an unknown thing to say it is not something?  That would be one amazing feat.  While you may provide the minimum aspect or function of said thing (counteracts gravitational force), since it unknown you cannot state the limit or extent of that thing or what the thing is.  To do so is to presuppose what the thing is (which I understand is bigot thing that only Christians do.)

What i am trying to say is dark energy/matter is a thing. We know its there because we know the universe expands. The stars galaxies that NASA takes pictures of isn't even there anymore. Rather the light from said galaxies are reaching us and giving us a peek into what was there at that point. To explain that a bit better, distance in a vacuum that being said stars in the night sky when you look up might not even be there anymore because light and information takes light years to reach us. So those galaxies nasa has taken pictures off aren't even there anymore due to expansion. Stars and other formations more than likely gone. That being said when they do reach there eventual collapse and go supernova and or collapses into itself turning into a black hole. We will still see a star but once again it would take billions of light years for new information and or light to reach us.

And what I am saying is you do not even know if it is a thing. You suppose it to be a thing. Just a dark matter is not necessarily stuff but could be explained by alternative theories of gravitation. All you know is the current theory is not accounting for an observable phenomenon. So, if we are honest with ourselves we will recognize dark matter and energy are just another way of saying there may be something and since we do not know what that something is we will say it is matter and energy because the former (under our current theory, which is not accounting for the phenomenon) would need to supply extra mass within galaxies (but not between galaxies) and the latter would need to supply extra energy between galaxies (but not within the galaxies themselves).

---

I am not trying to prove anything here. All I can do is compare other religious to my list of 8 and see how they stack up. If another religions takes into account my list and theorizes a different scenario, I would also consider that religion reasonable. Again, not true, just reasonable.

You are intellectually dishonest and you refuse to learn. Evolution is solid fact we have a common ancestor. The fact being you would
rather using straw mam and even apologist tactics show how dishonest christianity and religion is in general. You are not helping 
religion at all. You are for the most part would be a laughing stock in the EU and RU. Because we tried telling you that you are wrong and 
here is why you never wanted to bother really reading it and tried to worm your way around it. 

Evolution is not a fact. Again it is theory (one which I believe) and just as stipulated by Charles Darwin it is in keeping with theistic beliefs/views.

[SteveII]

Wow. You have got to be kidding me. After having exactly what "theory" means in a scientific sense over and over, you're still going to misuse it Steve? What you put forward are hypotheses. You're incredibly dishonest and I'm done with you. It is only a "theory" in the informal sense, and you're deliberately conflating the definitions in a desperate attempt to give weight to your religious beliefs. Apologetics equals dishonesty, once again.

Maybe one day you will learn what science is, and learn what the theory of evolution is. Because right now you have no clue about either, and you're just making that more and more clear. It is so sad to see religious belief blatantly causing a refusal to learn.

The very first synonym for theory is hypothesis. The very first synonym for hypothesis is theory. 

I keep hearing over and over again I do not understand evolutionary theory. I don't perhaps as well as you and others here. It does not matter. All of Evolutionary theory is not fact. It is our best scientifically-based guess as to how we got here based on the facts we know and can test. Again, since evolution (and science in general) is not sufficient to address my list of 8, my conclusion that God exists is reasonable (but not necessary true).

[Cato]

I am not trying to prove anything here. All I can do is compare other religious to my list of 8 and see how they stack up. If another religions takes into account my list and theorizes a different scenario, I would also consider that religion reasonable. Again, not true, just reasonable.

Absurd. #5 is not only unsubstantiated, but necessarily excludes all other religions.

[abaris]

I keep hearing over and over again I do not understand evolutionary theory.

No, you don't even understand the scientific term theory.

[Cato]

Again, since evolution (and science in general) is not sufficient to address my list of 8, my conclusion that God exists is reasonable (but not necessary true).

Your list of 8 has already been shown to be mostly nonsense; therefore, your conclusion is not reasonable.

[FatAndFaithless]

"I'll just list a group of untestable claims and since they're untestable they can't be falsified thus they're reasonable."
Are you for fucking real.

[dyresand]

What i am trying to say is dark energy/matter is a thing. We know its there because we know the universe expands. The stars galaxies that NASA takes pictures of isn't even there anymore. Rather the light from said galaxies are reaching us and giving us a peek into what was there at that point. To explain that a bit better, distance in a vacuum that being said stars in the night sky when you look up might not even be there anymore because light and information takes light years to reach us. So those galaxies nasa has taken pictures off aren't even there anymore due to expansion. Stars and other formations more than likely gone. That being said when they do reach there eventual collapse and go supernova and or collapses into itself turning into a black hole. We will still see a star but once again it would take billions of light years for new information and or light to reach us.

And what I am saying is you do not even know if it is a thing.  You suppose it to be a thing.  Just a dark matter is not necessarily stuff but could be explained by alternative theories of gravitation.  All you know is the current theory is not accounting for an observable phenomenon.  So, if we are honest with ourselves we will recognize dark matter and energy are just another way of saying there may be something and since we do not know what that something is we will say it is matter and energy because the former (under our current theory, which is not accounting for the phenomenon) would need to supply extra mass within galaxies (but not between galaxies) and the latter would need to supply extra energy between galaxies (but not within the galaxies themselves).

I do know that dark matter/energy is a thing. Scientists have found ways of detecting it using gravitational lensing. They do this light going through the gravitational lens is similar to light going through a optical lens it gets bent. When light from the distant stars passes through a galaxy or cluster the gravity of of matter present in the galaxy or cluster causes the light to bend. As a result the light looks like it is coming from some where else rather than its origin. That being said when you do get that gravitational lensing effect you have found dark matter/energy. 

[dyresand]

---

You are intellectually dishonest and you refuse to learn. Evolution is solid fact we have a common ancestor. The fact being you would
rather using straw mam and even apologist tactics show how dishonest christianity and religion is in general. You are not helping 
religion at all. You are for the most part would be a laughing stock in the EU and RU. Because we tried telling you that you are wrong and 
here is why you never wanted to bother really reading it and tried to worm your way around it. 

Evolution is not a fact.  Again it is theory (one which I believe) and just as stipulated by Charles Darwin it is in keeping with theistic beliefs/views.

Do i have to fucking put down the definition of THEORY again.

Here is the scientific theory definition

1. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientificmethod and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
   The definition of theorya supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.Evolution is Fact no matter how much you don't want it to be. 

[SteveII]

According to the Christian THEORY (since I don't need to be certain of anything to have a theory, I just need some evidence that agrees with my conclusions) God has interacted with our reality (not meant to be an exhaustive list):

Is this really what you're going to do? You have the definition of a scientific theory, which includes a list of essential criteria, including falsifiability and predictive capability, parsimony, and consistency with other experimental results, and instead of seriously engaging in this conversation you're just going to dishonestly grandstand like this?

Well, whatever. You don't match any of the criteria: what you have here is just a theory, a guess based on your presuppositions, rather than a scientific theory. I'm genuinely sorry that playing up to your own pride is more important to you than the honest discussion that could have taken place here.

1) The universe had a cause

Universal expansion has a cause, beyond that we don't even have an adequate physics model to explain what happens. Learn your astrophysics.

2) Life exists
3) Complex biological systems exist

Okay.

4) The ancient Jews interacted with God quite a bit

And now you've made a claim that is both unfalsifiable and unevidenced. I thought this was supposed to be a list of evidence, why are you putting a completely unjustified fiat claim on it?

5) Jesus came, ministered, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected
6) Miracles still happen
7) There is a god-shaped hole in everyone's psychology
8) The "inter-witness of the Holy Spirit" (there, that should get all the WLC fans going)

Five unjustified fiat claims? How on earth can you consider this a list of evidence?

Of course you will pick apart each one as "you can't prove..." and "baseless assertions". I don't have to prove them, just like evolution, the mountain of evidence I have points to a probabilistic conclusion that the God of Christianity exists. Until I am presented with a theory that answers all of these questions with a different answer, that is what I choose to believe.

Despite the vitriol that is sure to come, this is not an unreasonable THEORY--much like believing in evolutionary theory is not unreasonable.

What an utter disappointment you've turned out to be. You're not interested in learning, you're just another patsy for your religion. It's completely vile that you represented yourself as someone willing to engage honestly with the facts, when in truth you were nothing but. I thought your god didn't like liars, so I guess your devotion to him is secondary to your need to massage your ego.

I never said I was proposing a scientific theory.

You label my evidence as unjustified fiat claims. I did not dream these things up. There is evidence. You might not like the quality of the evidence, but evidence never-the-less. BTW, I forgot Fine-tuning.

I have heard your arguments over and over again against this list. I don't find them convincing when you consider the whole list at the same time. I am not attempting to prove the existence of God--merely defend the idea that it is reasonable to believe in the God of Christianity.