What proof you have provided has been in the form of non-sequitor lists and a few hints that some archeology/events of the bible have some basis in fact - none that ‘prove’ your point.
A list of ‘why I believe god is real’ is not proof that god ‘is’ real - its only reasons you ‘believe’ it.
They have all been dealt with in this thread.
Have a pleasant evening.
Translation; I am going away and will ignore your proof; I am unable to individually disprove all 167 of them, so I will pretend they don’t exist; just like I pretend God does not exist.
I haven’t gone anywhere - you don’t seem to understand the word ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’.
I don’t ‘pretend’ God does not exist - I see no evidence that a ‘supernatural being called ‘God’ exists’ - and until such evidence is provided, that is not ‘pretending’.
Mind you - that has to be objective evidence of that specific being - not ‘subjective evidence that he left behind if you look hard enough’.
The same type of ‘evidence’ you would look for and/or use to prove that a unicorn existed - and that has been used to prove that a horse does exist.
Well back up your own logic by individually objectively disproving all 167 of them, or is that a bit too much to ask?
Where id my response to your OP - specifically 856 and 859 on this page - even talk about whether or not your ‘God’ exists?
I addressed the concept of ‘hell’ within the framework of the ‘bible’ and added in, as evidence for it attributes of the ‘bible god’.
‘Bible God’ is in quotes because you claim that is not a real representation of ‘God’ (or only the good parts are, the bad parts aren’t) and to frame the rebuttal to that specific ‘version’ of God.
Thats not how it works - you make the extra-ordinary claim - you get to back it up.
It is not my job to disprove you - it is your job to back up your claims.
or is that too much to ask?
How about giving a rebuttal to the 167 listed proofs in this thread?
What do any of them have to do with ‘hell’ as a concept from the ‘bible’ ?
In any event - here is your rebuttal -
Not one of them prove or provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural being - let alone one commonly referred to as ‘God’.
Your turn - prove that statement wrong.
Since there are 167 of them, list the one and explain why it is not proof. Lets start with post no. 435, disprove each of those please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simster View Post
So - you agree that the ‘Unicorn’ is a mythical creature - why is that?
I most certainly agree the Unicorn is a mythical creature, because I have no proof of it; but where God is concerned, I have this proof;
Consciousness
The Anthropic Principles
Irreducible Complexity
Biblical archaeology
Biogenesis
The laws of conversation
Kalam Cosomological argument
Proteins
The animal kingdom
The Universe
The laws of Gravity
The fossil record
Metamorphosis
DNA
The second law of Thermodynamics
Life
Life spans
Entrophy
Purpose
The first living cells
Atheist
Causality
Chirality
Historical Writers
Carbon Dating
Civilization
Language
Emotions
Females
Prophecy
Morals
No proof that God is not real
Increasing Complexity
Evolution
The law of perpetual transmutation
The law of mentality
Now give me your list that supports unicorns being real. Well you can’t, but with God you can.
Reply With Quote
You have to offer something of substance, so far you have not. Your first-hand accounts of the existence of Jesus was itself an empty, meaningless list that might have had one possible reference of value but was mostly garbage. Your other lists are similarly of little value and prove nothing. In fact, the evidence is even scant.
It is not on anyone else to disprove your fluff, it is up to you to actually provide one thing of substance and try to support it. So far we only see you blowing smoke.
I believe you described the OP as “uneducated silliness”: some people view that (‘hey, I wrote that’) as a personal attack, you are essentially calling the poster a silly rube.
Nonsense, I gave the list, I gave the proof, now go through with me which ones and why are not proof.
You ask for proof, you get it and then spit on it and won’t even debate each point by point; I view that as evasion.
Classic evasion. Show us why each one is not proof.
I’m not putting quotes around his list
Consciousness - we don’t understand it, that is not a proof of god. The ancients did not understand how the sun shone; that was not a proof of god either.
The Anthropic Principles - as I mentioned above, this is actually something that supports the idea that God is not required. What your really mean is that the universe seems designed for us. See my comment on the water and the hole, in any case a universe truly designed for us would have a lot more habitable planets and a lot less empty space than this one does.
Irreducible Complexity - actually doesn’t exist. Even if it did, maybe space aliens are responsible. We can twiddle with the genome already.
Biblical archaeology - And Oz exists. Disproved over and over again. Aren’t you paying attention.
Biogenesis - Do you mean abiolgenesis? There are many plausible methods. Certainly no proof of god.
The laws of conversation - you mean conservation. Why wouldn’t they be true in any reasonable universe.
Kalam Cosomological argument - invalidated by all sorts of modern physics.
Proteins - easy to naturally synthesize.
The animal kingdom - Answered by evolution
The Universe - yeah, all those people living in non-universes have it tough.
The laws of Gravity - why?
The fossil record - Good evidence against many religions.
Metamorphosis - Well understood.
DNA - also well understood.
The second law of Thermodynamics- why would God design a universe that runs down? Or do you mean the nonsense argument that neglects the energy from the sun?
Life - the universe and everything. God does not exist because there is no life on Venus. Duh.
Life spans - ??? Shorter before science got involved.
Entropy - Again, an argument against god.
Purpose - which does not exist except within us.
The first living cells - they evolved. Duh.
Atheist - now you’re getting silly. There wouldn’t be any if god would just show up.
Causality - does not exist at the quantum level.
Chirality - why is this even evidence of god?
Historical Writers - evidence of lots of Gods. Do you doubt Homer?
Carbon Dating - Well, if carbon ever wants to meet a nice girl …
Civilization - improved despite the best efforts of religion
Language - Do you believe in the Babel story? You realize that languages evolve, right?
Emotions - animals have them too. Easily explained.
Females - tell that to an amoeba
Prophecy - always false. We’ve been through this. Guess what - the prophecy in Macbeth is not an argument for the existence of witches.
Morals - been through this at length.
No proof that God is not real - hard to prove that kind of negative. Finding evidence is up to you - you need to do better than this list
Increasing Complexity - explained by a random walk - and not all complexity increases. Some even decreases.
Evolution - right
The law of perpetual transmutation - Which Harry Potter volume was this in?
The law of mentality - must resist obvious joke
In other words, you got nothing. Not one thing in your list is even evidence for god, let alone proof. God can easily prove his existence if he wanted to. Why doesn’t he?
<list snipped for brevity by me>
YOu still don’t get the way this works do you?
Pick one and show how it provides evidence for the existence of a ‘supernatural being’, let alone your ‘God’ - we’ll go from there.
I see that for you has already done these line by line - but it was summed up before -
Not one of those items provides any objective evidence for a supernatural being, let alone one commonly refereed to as ‘God’.
and, ftr - you still haven’t dealt with the rebuttal to your ‘hell’ argument - you’re avoiding that by gish galloping back to this ‘Gods existence’ debate.
Giving a list of ‘things you believe prove God’ is not evidence of Gods existence.
There is nothing to debate in that laundry list -
You are the one evading.
Your arguments are proof to me that you have no legit rebuttals. Only sarcasm and crying.
If there is “nothing” to debate, that is simply and always be your response to evidence provided; " Nothing!"
You provided a laundry list of items - you provided no context or reason WHY those items individually (or collectively) proved ‘Gods existence’ - therefore you provided nothing to debate on.
That same list could be used as “167 reasons I like the dictionary” and had just as much context.
I wondered about that myself. I Googled and found this little gem. It appears to take an accepted physical principle – energy is constantly changing its form: light turns to heat, heat causes physical expansion of liquids, gravitational potential energy turns to velocity – and then extending it into lands of mystical woo – “Change is all there is.” And, no, change isn’t all there is: there are also structures of significant duration. My coffee cup hasn’t changed much in the last few years.
Nice set of rebuttals, by the way. Our correspondent seems to be of the opinion that giving a list of topics somehow constitutes a debate point. (And always double-spaced, as if taking up more vertical room on our display screens increases the meaningful weight of his empty citations.) That, coupled with his “You do the work, I refuse to” approach makes me consider him quite unprepared for significant meaningful debate.
Oh its stunning proof of God. Its the first law of the universe; energy is always moving and transmuting, there was NEVER a time that a still black hole existed and gave birth to everything. Energy is always in a state of motion, never standing still and permitting a " First cause by chance to form." Energy cannot slow down and support any theory of creation without God.