God: Misinterpreted as an extraterrestrial?

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, we don't know where our universe ultimately came from. I can say "we don't know" and still know that you, personally, are incorrect in your beliefs about its origins if they are in any way based off of the biblical account. Genesis is not, by many christian interpretations, or by the weight of the evidence available to us, an account of material creation. Being unable to pin down the specifics of any given event does not preclude us from being able to whittle down the list of things that it is not. For example, we know that there was a massive extinction event during the Holocene epoch. We don't know exactly what caused it, but we are fairly certain that it was not nuclear weapons. Again, if you know the origins of our universe in better detail than our current understanding, go claim your Nobel Prize. Nothing irritates me more than people claiming knowledge of things they have absolutely no knowledge of. It's deceitful.

Two responses arguing about evidence, rather than presenting any. Typical. Do I need to make special rules about evidence before any evidence for god can materialize? I won't, and you shouldn't either.

Perhaps you didn't understand my request. If "goddidit" has explanatory power, it should be easy to elaborate upon the proposition. Unless you were talking out of your ass. And here I see you doing it again. God doesn't account for any of those things, you simply believe that he does. UNLESS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE.

You could have addressed it, you didn't.

Hahaha, I get to toss out that favorite amongst apologists. It doesn't matter how god could have done it. He clearly did it in the manner for which we have mountains of evidence. To argue otherwise is to argue for Loki, not Yahweh. If, if, if, if. Good thing the universe is billions of years old then, eh? Perhaps you should have said "I don't believe in science" rather than "science cannot explain". That would have been a more accurate description of the situation. It would also have prevented the embarrassing episode whereby I linked you to something that science could indeed explain, that you were simply ignorant of.

Evidence for god? Evidence for cosmic judgement? Evidence for eternal life? Evidence for Christ? Evidence for creation? Evidence for "spirit"? So, again, bullshit (unless you're actually going to provide evidence for any of this, instead of blustering around like a child caught in a lie).

[Ace Otana]

You don't know that "we" don't know. Since you don't know, you don't know that either. Someone who doesn't know can't say what I know or don't know.

So you are silly enough to claim to 'know' how/where the universe came from? I call that arrogance. You're going to have to back up your claims or be ignored. Your choice. Because I won't take you seriously.

Also, to say that I believe what I do because I am afraid to admit otherwise isn't true. I wasn't afraid of not knowing prior to my belief in God.

Why won't you admit to not knowing now?

Saying I don't know is not applying Occums Razor. A design by an intelligent Creator is a much simplier explanation than saying it evolved by naturalistic processes. The naturalistic processes described by science don't even work, let alone explain how values as precise as one in 10 to the 37th power arise by chance.

Wrong yet again. Stick to the simplest until there is evidence for the more complex. Your god belief is in fact very complex whilst a natural universe is actually heavily supported.
Also suggesting that a prat magically created everything out of nothing randomly is actually far more complex than simply saying "I don't know", so no. God is not a simple explanation, it's a very complex one.

Meaning, that Gods existence is obvious just from the Creation itself. Meaning, you're surrounded by evidence, all the days of your life.

That's not evidence. We can look at the universe and in no way does it suggest it was created by some dictator, genocidal maniac.

[lucent]

Again, we don't know where our universe ultimately came from. I can say "we don't know" and still know that you, personally, are incorrect in your beliefs about its origins if they are in any way based off of the biblical account.

You don't know the biblical account is wrong, you just presume it is. Therefore, you can't say I am wrong based on your presumption.

Genesis is not, by many christian interpretations, or by the weight of the evidence available to us, an account of material creation.

There is evidence which suggests it is correct, which you ignore or are unaware of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2wlSDV1ut0

Being unable to pin down the specifics of any given event does not preclude us from being able to whittle down the list of things that it is not. For example, we know that there was a massive extinction event during the Holocene epoch. We don't know exactly what caused it, but we are fairly certain that it was not nuclear weapons.

Ever heard of a worldwide flood? That is an extinction level event.

Again, if you know the origins of our universe in better detail than our current understanding, go claim your Nobel Prize. Nothing irritates me more than people claiming knowledge of things they have absolutely no knowledge of. It's deceitful.

I know enough to know that the evidence science presents for an old age for the Universe, and for evolution, is extremely weak, and the "mountain" is really a clevery disguised molehole.

Two responses arguing about evidence, rather than presenting any. Typical. Do I need to make special rules about evidence before any evidence for god can materialize? I won't, and you shouldn't either.

You keep repeating you want evidence over and over again, so I am asking, what exactly is your standard for evidence?

Perhaps you didn't understand my request. If "goddidit" has explanatory power, it should be easy to elaborate upon the proposition. Unless you were talking out of your ass. And here I see you doing it again. God doesn't account for any of those things, you simply believe that he does. UNLESS YOU HAVE EVIDENCE.

Umm..perhaps you're new to philosophy, or just debate in general, but to say something has explanatory power just means that as a hypothesis it can account for certain facts about reality. God can account for why we have a Universe, why we have a world fine tuned for life, the origin of life, the rise of consciousness, objective moral values, and brings together every epistimological, metaphysical and ethical discipline into a cohesive unity. Whether you believe He exists or not is irrelevent to the question.

Hahaha, I get to toss out that favorite amongst apologists. It doesn't matter how god could have done it. He clearly did it in the manner for which we have mountains of evidence.

That isn't clear at all, though it is clearly your personal preference to believe that. Again, there is evidence which suggests otherwise, which you are either dismiss or are unaware of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n042X-Fuihg

To argue otherwise is to argue for Loki, not Yahweh.

Non-sequiter

If, if, if, if. Good thing the universe is billions of years old then, eh?

Is it?

http://www.4thdayalliance.com/articles/u...-universe/

Perhaps you should have said "I don't believe in science" rather than "science cannot explain". That would have been a more accurate description of the situation.

I believe in science. Evolution and big bang cosmology is not science.

It would also have prevented the embarrassing episode whereby I linked you to something that science could indeed explain, that you were simply ignorant of.

The theories for stellar evolution and planet formation don't work..this is fairly well known. I'll find you some better articles later..pressed for time.

http://creation.com/phoenix-galaxy-stars...ion-theory

Evidence for god? Evidence for cosmic judgement? Evidence for eternal life? Evidence for Christ? Evidence for creation? Evidence for "spirit"? So, again, bullshit (unless you're actually going to provide evidence for any of this, instead of blustering around like a child caught in a lie).

Again, what is your standard of evidence? And there is plenty of evidence to suggest the secular ideas of how the Universe began and came to be as it is are incorrect. There is obviously no empirical evidence for spirit by definition. There is historical evidence for Christ. There is evidence, but will you thoughtfully consider it, and what exactly is your standard?

.

[Anomalocaris]

Do yourself a favor, stop quoting from buffonish creationist sites. You don't have a clue what science is. So shut the fuck up.

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually, we do know that Genesis (especially if taken as an account of material creation) is incorrect. You believe that it is not. However, for this to be anything more than your own belief, you would have to provide evidence.

The density of mercury suggests that the bible is correct? I thought I'd already heard the most ignorant thing I was going to hear today.

I have heard of a global flood yes, I haven't seen any evidence of a global flood. Care to step up?

Apparently you do not. Again, you only believe that you know.

That makes three responses waffling around about evidence. You know exactly what is required, you know you don't have any, and this is why you keep pouting about "standards of evidence" instead of actually providing any.

Your premise and conclusion are both in dispute (as is most everything in between). As such, your god cannot be said to account for anything. Fix your arguments. If you do, then you'll have arguments, I'll still require evidence.

Hmn, 57 minutes long and the first thing I see when I start browsing is a defense of a global flood (doesn't bode well). Give me the cliff notes on the evidence presented here.

You're arguing for a trickster god. Loki is a trickster god.

I actually lost a little bit of my drink when this website loaded. You realize that all of these papers link to bullshit "creation journals" right? Let's see some science amigo. The first one I checked up on was actually Ken Ham's baby CMI/AIG. If you're going to link trash I'm going to stop spending time responding to you and just call bullshit until you, personally, make the case.

I suppose you and science will just have to agree to disagree on that count eh? Linking creation journals is strike one through three. You're claiming conspiracy here. Bullshit.

Another creation link. Why is it that the only people who seem to come to these conclusions are christians, largely apologists?

That makes four contortions around the word evidence. Way to end a post.

Your entire post consisted of "science cannot explain this", or "the current theory does not fit our observations", now, laying aside the fact that I don't actually trust for one minute that anything even approaching a factual assessment of our knowledge or theories on these matters is actually being offered......at what point would science being wrong about this or that automatically default to your god? When you're asked to show evidence for your claims of gods existence, or of the the bibles innerrancy, provide evidence of god's existence, or the bible's innerrancy. Don't waste a single keystroke providing evidence for why this or that piece of scientific evidence is wrong. We can't both be right, but we can both be wrong. You have to make your own case. It cannot be made by criticizing the theory of another. If any given comet, just to take one example from your linktrash, is not billions of years old, how, exactly, is that proof of anything that is written in the bible? There's a quick answer, it isn't. I'm going to have to side with Chuck here, you have absolutely no idea what science is, or how it is done.

[ElDinero]

Sometimes Rhythm, I think I may be falling for you.

[Shell B]

Sometimes Rhythm, I think I may be falling for you.

You would have to fight summer.

Lucent, please review the BB code guide. http://atheistforums.org/thread-3560.html We have a nice quote function that makes it so you don't have to bold other members' posts. Please use it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, Summers got her a man that doesn't have the fro genes. He's also superior in the way that matters most, he isn't married.

[Shell B]

Nah, Summers got her a man that doesn't have the fro genes. He's also superior in the way that matter most, he isn't married.

I'm behind on my gossip, I see. Since when is summer dating someone who isn't married?

[Epimethean]

Paging Shell B. You are wanted in the cellphone thread.