Being cannot come from Non-being

[Otangelo]

you must prove such a thing exists

No, i dont. Asking for proofs of Gods existence is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is.  To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason

So if you cant produce evidence for a god, the most logical inference is that the god does exist and he created everything?

i did not say there is no evidence. 

God already gave you evidence. Me giving you any is not necessary. There is no alternative to God. Is there ?

[The Architect Of Fate]

i did not say there is no evidence. 

You might as well have 

God already gave you evidence. 

Nope

Me giving you any is not necessary.

Nope

 There is no alternative to God. Is there ?

This argues he's even an option .No to mention this doesn't follow .

---

No, i dont. Asking for proofs of Gods existence is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. 

A task you have failed at 

There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is. 

Irrelevant 

 To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not.

Good thing were not claiming that 

 The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides. 

Nope your saying x exists in the positive .Prove it or go away .

 Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

Or you can show god exists or admit it's blind faith and wishful thinking .

[Otangelo]

you must prove such a thing exists

No, i dont. Asking for proofs of Gods existence is a silly epistemological approach and demonstrates the lack of understanding on the unbeliever's side how to get sound conclusions on origins. There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is.  To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides.  Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason

So if you cant produce evidence for a god, the most logical inference is that the god does exist and he created everything?

maybe you need to learn the difference between evidence, and proofs. 

I don't choose to be a theist, I just can not force my brain to accept the claim that Biological cells which are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive  of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks, could emerge by no guiding intelligence, but random unguided lucky accidents.

“I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in.”
George Washington Carver

[The Grand Nudger]

So if you cant produce evidence for a god, the most logical inference is that the god does exist and he created everything?

i did not say there is no evidence. 

God already gave you evidence. Me giving you any is not necessary. There is no alternative to God. Is there ?

Wait...did god drop by the boards, and I just missed him?



In mere reality, if you want people to believe the things you believe, then it's on you to present whatever evidence would be required for that. All you're doing, above, is presenting your own god as a failure. It already moved on us like a bitch, but just couldn't get there. For whatever reason, it's incapable of doing so, just like you're incapable of doing so.

If I were a believer, I would go another route with it, one that doesn't cast god as a perpetual fuckup in relation to a bunch of jumped up chimps. One where god simply wasn't interested in providing evidence..therefore it's not surprising that there isn't any. That can be difficult, depending on a persons religion..with the abrahamic stories being pretty explicit about god showing up and giving evidence to people that it wants to believe...but, you know, only in the distant past to some people you don't know, somewhere you've never been - but hey.....maybe he's changed his mind since.

Maybe he saw what you lot did and figured it's better that he not reinforce your beliefs with yet another repeat performance. : shrugs :

[The Architect Of Fate]

maybe you need to learn the difference between evidence, and proofs. 

You have produced neither  

I don't choose to be a theist, I just can not force my brain to accept the claim that Biological cells which are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive [url=http://i.viglink.com/?key=9aafeaa0dc973144cc8995b68291f36e&insertId=88922e9d13445e28&type=L&exp=60%3ACI1C55A%3A10&libId=k46wju270100g3d9000DA2ezu2ich7a8y&loc=http%3A%2F%2Freasonandscience.catsboard.com%2Ft1276-125-reasons-to-believe-in-god&v=1&iid=88922e9d13445e28&opt=true&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theshelvingstore.com%2Ffurniture&title=125%20reasons%20to%20believe%20in%20God&txt=%3Cspan%3Edesign%3C%2Fspan%3E][/url] of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks, could emerge by no guiding intelligence, but random unguided lucky accidents.

Yes you do and you do it based on nothing more then credulity .Well guess what reality doesn't give a damn .

“I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in.”
George Washington Carver

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.”
 Mark Twain


I can quote dead people too

[The Grand Nudger]

His religious beliefs have nothing to do with biology. Even he knows that. I have no idea why anyone would say something so silly.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

His religious beliefs have nothing to do with biology.  Even he knows that.  I have no idea why anyone would say something so silly.

Because celebrity in one field makes you an expert in every field.  For example, Jenny McCarthy is famous for having big tits and the acting talent of a brick, which obviously makes her an expert in immunology.

I'm surprised at you for not knowing this, GB.

Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

So if you cant produce evidence for a god, the most logical inference is that the god does exist and he created everything?

maybe you need to learn the difference between evidence, and proofs. 

You have neither evidence nor proof for your god. Why is that?

I don't choose to be a theist, I just can not force my brain to accept the claim that Biological cells which are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks, could emerge by no guiding intelligence, but random unguided lucky accidents.

So your claim is that you are too dumb to work it out therefore it must be some god? That is a straight out argument from ignorance. And god of the gaps for good measure.

“I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in.”[/font]
George Washington Carver

Why should anyone care what he said?

[Mr.wizard]

So if you cant produce evidence for a god, the most logical inference is that the god does exist and he created everything?

maybe you need to learn the difference between evidence, and proofs. 

I don't choose to be a theist, I just can not force my brain to accept the claim that Biological cells which are a factory park of unparalleled gigantic complexity and purposeful adaptive  of interlinked high-tech fabrics, fully automated and self-replicating, directed by genes and epigenetic languages and signalling networks, could emerge by no guiding intelligence, but random unguided lucky accidents.

“I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in.”
George Washington Carver

I'm well aware of the difference and I'm well aware that you can provide neither. Also you don't have to believe in any of that in order not to believe the claim of god, but i'm sure a logical guy like yourself already knows that.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

So.... has Hawking radiation or Nuclear decay been brought to Otangelo's attention yet?

Besides the other item of "Nothing" actually being little more than a human mental concept. Like 'Zero' and 'Botter-snipe' and such.

Cheers.