The era of Godless commies.

I distrust people who claim they talk to invisible men in the sky.

Invisible sky man is a cliche for a reason. Believers have been talking about him for thousands of years. You Made him a cliche. We just point it out.

Oh can you show me where I can see omniscient invisible Sky man for myself and ask him some questions and actually get some answers? And don't tell me the bible!

Defensive theists amuse me. You have nothing but your butthurt. You're the cliche.

As well as the balance of your post.

Butthurt believers lol.

Invisible sky man appears in the Nicene Creed. The Internet just came along to help us mock him.

ER, Him?

ETA oh wait do you mean Allah?

Such a rebel.

On the balcony of my high rise.

Still don't see sky man.

or maybe you can present evidence that God exists?

Extraordinary claims and all that.

No, not really. I'm used to the theist attack the messenger/tone argument riffs.

You still can't address the point apparently. You exemplify the post's point. You don't respect me because I refuse to accept your assertion that God exists without any evidence.

And check.

that your own position also lacks evidence.

The anti-theist would have us believe that "everything came from nothing" - without proof that this is possible.

In the absence of such proof, we are left with the possibility, that matter came into being as the result of conscience volition. Can it be proven? No, but it is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence.

whether it's a god(s), the physical universe, or something else. You can't get away from there being something from nothing.

When you add a god to the equation, you greatly complicate things. There is also zero evidence for any god.

We don't know the answer to the problem of infinite regress (or, for that matter, if it is even "infinite&quot , and may never know. We just know that "god" isn't it. Certainly not the "god" of any organized religion.

but a god certainly doesn't solve the problem of where we and the Universe came from. It really isn't possible for "nothing" to exist, since "nothing" is non-existence.

I suppose there could be some unknowable, ultimate realm (or realms) (with or without time) that is just there as a brute fact of nature. That is certainly far more believable than a god with purposeful design and magical powers as the starting point. Because in that case, we would have great reason to ask where did this highly designed god come from?

you would accept. Some would argue that mere existence is proof enough.

Keep in mind too that trying to define the parameters of a creator/god is a bit silly in that we can't even explain our own existence - much less the creator.

You cry foul!? Well, is it any different in the realm of computer systems? A 'user' is only allowed to perform a subset of superuser functions, who in turn, can only perform some of what an admin can do.

to restore the limbs of a group of amputees, and have their limbs grow back within a day? A few verified repetitions of that would certainly start to convince most atheists that someone was listening, and that certainly wouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the Xstian "god" if he existed, now would it?

Or how about a devasating hurricane poised to kill thousands all of a sudden just vanishing? Easy, right?

So your presumption is nonsense.

Your turn to cry foul!

he therefore doesn't (or can't) exist?

Very impressive - you have exactly defined 'hubris'...

Obviously. So spare me your snark, and stop being deliberately obtuse.

If you want to play this game with another god, go ahead and describe it, and what justifies calling it a "god" in the first place, and I'll be happy to oblige.

And please, when you throw around the word 'obtuse' and then ask the question, "what justifies calling it a "god" in the first place", it's difficult to take you seriously.

But my point remains - presenting a list of of grievances (amputees, hurricanes, etc.) as some sort of proof that the Christian god (or any other) doesn't exist, smacks a bit as hubris.

You ask for what would be acceptable evidence to atheists that a "god" who created the whole universe actually does exist. You were given examples that clearly qualify. No one said anything about those examples being "proof" that such a "god" doesn't exist. You made that up.

Sorry if your "god" isn't up to that. But I did predict you'd cry foul. Thanks for not disappointing.

it were some sort of "gotcha!"

"Sorry if your "god" isn't up to that" - As I've stated, neither you nor I get to make the rules. If there is a creator, it should be obvious that our whim doesn't mean squat - we don't get to define the parameters under which he operates.

Let me refresh your memory, dude. You also said: I think what you mean is there is no evidence that you would accept. Apparently that was a lame (and failed) attempt to make atheists look closed-minded. When that was shown to be bullshit, when you were shown that there was evidence we would accept as indicating the existence of a god, you went the "No fair, you can't ask god to do THAT!!" route. Old, tired, and intellectually bankrupt. I have to admit, though, the "list of grievances" dodge was at least original, even though laughable.

And I only said IF we saw that kind of evidence, it would be sufficient (since that was what you asked for), not that either of those specific things is necessary. You do know the difference, right? You're the one trying the define the parameters under which your "god" operates, dude..not me. You're the one putting limits on what the creator of the universe would be able to do, not me. Got hubris?

Take my advice...cut your losses, dude. All you have left is the vain hope of getting me hidden. You certainly don't have a viable argument.

But don't think you're fooling anybody...

I hope you have a great Friday...

what evidence do you have for a god?

There could have been a number of pieces of evidence for a god: Nature could be unpredictable, as if driven by the whims of a higher power. The earth could have possibly existed without any evidence of its past history (as if the earth was created in its current form). The god could have directly demonstrated its existence. That's just a few.

None of these are true or have happened, and any other imagined evidences for god have not happened either, so all tests for god have failed.

to assume a creator (#14).

With that thought process, you can believe anything you want.

to administer a computer.

There is no need to posit a creator. That is pure human narcissistic vanity.

of computer system management, generally would be considered foolish should they dictate to an admin what his duties should be. Is this a perfect analogy? of course not.

The larger point is that humans dictating to a creator what his creation should "look like" is a similarly foolish undertaking.

I see many declaring that if there is a god, the world wouldn't be this way - or that. So because the world - as is - doesn't fit their template of what a created world must look like, the idea of a creator must be discarded. This is a bit of hubris - imho...

I don't have to prove the negative of your assertion. There is absolutely no reason to believe any intelligent agent "created" the universe even if I don't know how the universe came into being.

That is a classic theist logical dodge and it's a bullshit rhetorical trick. Specific claims require evidence. Extraordinary claims especially so.

I make no claim other than that yours is obviously extraordinary and you have not a shred of proof for it.

I do not have to disprove your claim. You have to prove it.

I am a PhD holding research scientist. Don't try that shit on me.

for me to accept that the possibility of a creator is reasonable - and go from there.

The atheist sees no god. The theist says that there is a god. The one making the claim needs the evidence. In this situation, the atheist position is the null hypothesis. You can't prove your god? Then we default to the null hypothesis.

As to your claims of the origins of the universe, I think it is much more complex than that and we have a lot more knowledge than you put forth. But I'm just an English teacher, so I will leave it to the scientists on the board to educate you.

and in my experience, complex systems don't "just happen"...

but that doesn't give you any ground to say that I need to prove my point. Just because I can't answer how the universe came into being does not mean that "god did it" is the right answer. That was the reason we thought we had mountains until we learn about plates. That was the reason we though the sun orbited the earth until we learned about the planets.

Nobody is saying that it "just happened." It's just that we don't know what specifically caused it. If you want to posit a reason, the proof is on you. "God did it" isn't proof. And, frankly, it seems like the easy way out. There are all kinds of reasons why this planet is able to sustain human life and that life was able to develop here. Dawkins and other biologists can explain that very well. Three centuries ago, "god did it" was the best answer because it was easy. And people had horrible things done to them if they didn't want to accept that answer.

Does your experience tell you how genes mutate? Funny how thousand of years of human "experience" didn't tell us things we now know to be true, like the idea that the earth revolves around the sun and that our solar system is one of billions like it or that germs cause diseases. Experience told people God made those things happen.

Science showed it wasn't "God" but predictable natural processes.

Your experience, in other words, is worth diddly squat if I can't confirm it intersubjectively. My experience tells me that positing a human-like agent and intelligence as the "creator" of the universe is absurd and magical thinking of a pre-scientific era.

Can you point to the "predictable natural process" that caused matter to appear from nothing? Or how about life? If the process of life is "predictable" then somebody must be creating simple life forms in their primordial soup lab experiment...

You are the one dodging the point. We have directly observed evolution in micro and macro dimensions. Since you don't know where matter came from either, and you're the only one positing a ridiculous cause based on your "experience," once again the burden of evidence lies with you.

Not knowing something doesn't mean that any explanation is equally true. Virtually every natural process we now understand in its minute intricacy -- from erosion to genetic mutation to planetary motion to the size of the universe to the way the brain works -- was once explained as "made by God" or "God's will," which once seemed like a good reason to ignorant people based on their "experience." One by one the argument from intentional design has fallen by the wayside as spurious, uninteresting, and just obviously superstitious woo.

We have a good guess about the origin of matter actually (the standard model in physics) -- and we get closer to refining it with each cycle of the Hadron supercollider. And just because we can't do something in a lab (yet) doesn't mean it isn't real and observable in nature. Life emerged on earth a few billion years ago under conditions we can model. That is significantly more evidence for natural causality than you have for "god" making anything. Because you have none. No one has ever seen any material evidence of god. God is so very obviously a projection of our tiny consciousness, which is why the concept varies across cultures in so many dimensions.

You argue disingenuously, sir. I recognize the tricks and talking points. I've debated creationists and homeopaths many times in my career as a scientist. You think yourself so intelligent and logical. To anyone who knows anything about science or logic as a philosophical discipline you are spewing tautologies and nonsense.

Do you think that God "just happened" or did God also require a creator?

seems a bit silly to try to define the parameters under which the creator exists...

If complex systems require a creator then the even more complex creator must also require a creator, etc., etc.

with which to direct it's development. Not to mention that we, even though we may understand natural systems and the mechanisms of life, have not yet developed the ability to produce even a blade of grass from scratch.

And so when we begin discussing a conscious being - that can create - we are literally out of our league. We have no rationale basis with which to determine (or declare) the parameters of the existence of such a being.

I used to think that if provided proof I would believe in the existence of God, as technology progresses though it becomes ever more difficult for me to think of something or anything that I would accept as the unequivocal proof of the existence of God. Maybe bring my now-fifty-years-dead parents back to life in front of me but I can't think of much else.

A corollary of Clarke's third law is that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from Godhood.

in the discussion - namely that "complex systems don't 'just happen'...". Not to mention that "technology" doesn't just happen in nature either.

Yes, I agree with, 'We have no rational basis to determine the existence of such a being either'.

My argument however is that it is as least as rational to consider that nature had a guiding hand (a creator), than to declare that both life & matter came from nothing we can define. Why is this "as rational"? Because, "complex systems don't 'just happen'..."

...not by the standard definition of "rational":

https://www.google.com/search?q=rational&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

1. matter can appear spontaneously (our big bang)
2. Life can appear from non-living matter (abiogenesis)

Notice that I did not state the the above cannot happen, merely that we don't have evidence.

Without the evidence for 1 & 2, is it rational to accept these as possible?

explain precisely why 'matter can appear spontaneously'.

abiogenesis is a different field.


Those two things you don't seem to think much of, are far LESS complex and far MORE believable than an a priori infinitely complex and powerful creator-being to explain how either of those scenarios could have been guided by intelligence and willed into being.

Hydrogen is as simple as an atom gets. Not complex.

We know very well, and can demonstrate evidence that more complex material is forged in stars, and distributed in supernova.

Another example of loaded dice.

baptize* me or my memory.



Tikki
*hook me up to something I never will believe in.

not to do business with them. Also people who make sure to tell you are Christians are to be avoided. While that is a broad brush experience has taught me this. I wonder how many Christians have formed their distrust of atheists based on experience.

Just this morning a principal of a local Christian school was arrested for sexual assault of two ten year olds.

Figure they'll get their hands in my pockets and tell me I'm going to hell. And then wonder why I don't want to talk to them.

--Bulletin from the N.S. Sherlock Research Institute, as they say on FARK.com

Or any business that gives an irrelevant reason to do business with them.

And since I hadn't previously consciously considered that fallacy, but now that you explain it, it will be easy to remember and recognize, thanks.

partly based on the atheists I've known and the atheist I used to be, and partly based on my observation that it takes a high degree of selfless courage and honesty in today's society to say that one is an atheist. Selfless courage and honesty are trustworthy traits, imo.