What list have you provided in rebuttle? Where is your list? We have your denial, how about your list of evidence? At least I have given plenty.
You don’t get how this works, do you?
Here is a complete list of objective evidence for God - I’ll even number the first point for you -
1.)
</end of list>.
You have given alot of noise - you have not given any list of ‘evidence’.
What ‘first law of the universe’ ?
No one has said that a ‘still black hole existed and gave birth to everything’ - thats a concept you dreamed up.
what the hell is a “first cause to form” ?
Even if you’re muddled mess of a proof made sense - it still does not provide for any objective evidence of a supernatural being called ‘God’ to exist - it only provides a ‘concept’ that ‘energy’ caused the universe to form - which, oddly enough , is ‘close’ to what the big bang theory is about.
Here’s another list of evidence of God;
Jealousy
Fear
Sadness
Joy
Anger
Curiosity
Memory
De Ja Vu
Suffering
Wisdom
Knowledge
Understanding
Mathmatics
Language
Calenders
Time
Measurement
Gravity
Smiles
Doubt
Confidence
Motivation
Humanity.
None of these things have self origin; all of these things are unique evidence of design.
No, you have to explain to us why you think each one is proof. Otherwise, it is just a list of words. The ball begins in your court.
You can’t prove that.
Are you serious? Where did imagination come from? Things that have no imagination? Explain to me how imagination can come from a rock? What imagination can a rock birth? Explain to me, or goodness, maybe to yourself, what imagination a pool of magic chemicals has? For some strange unorthodox reason , you are willing to believe that your imagination came from cesspools at the bottom of a lucky lake that was developed magically by incredible forces that have absolutely no credible explination of origin. And you dare say that something cannot be proven, when your own explination of things is a joke.
Mickiel-
These lists aren’t accomplishing anything. You continue to provide them as if they require no explanation. They do.
Another one of these without further argument will earn you an infraction. We welcome debate at the SDMB, we don’t welcome argument by list.
No warning issued.
Humanity doesn’t have “self origin,” but does show clear indications of descent from prior species. The failings of the human design are numerous: the painful curvature of the spine, the absurd remaining toes, etc. If we are the result of “design,” the designer is an incompetent clod.
ed;
Jealousy; How can emotion be birthed by anything other than an emotional source? If not, explain to yourself, how jealously can evolve from chemicals that are not jealous?
Fear; why should fear evolve? By demand, fear is only possible if something exist! How can fear be born, if nothing exist to fear? So BEFORE fear can be, something to fear must exist!
Sadness; Oh please, how can sadness exist, without a human first existing to define it? We know what being sad means, how can we know that, if there was not a reason to know it first? For sadness to exist, happiness must exist also. The duality of both is stunning proof of God, and direct evidence that something from nothing cannot produce sadness.
Joy; How can Joy come from zero? Zero is the theory of science, where is joy in that theory?
Anger: How can anger come from a lucky self creating universe? Why would self creation be angry? Why would the scientific theory of evolution create anger? How did it create anger?
Curiosity: explain to me how we need to be curious, if we give our meaning to science, and allow knowledge to explain our curiosity? When it should superseed knowledge.
Memory; How could unguided proteins give memory to themselves?
De Ja Vu; Don’t you just sense that we are too unique to be the result of Atheism?
Suffering:We suffer because we were meant to. And none of our knowledge can stop it. When we can’t stop something, its more powerful than us.
Wisdom; We know God exist, because we know how it is; wisdom is knowing how it is.
Knowledge; knowledge only grows because we don’t really know as much as we like to think we do.
Understanding; if there was another life, we would be null and void to that life, if the Atheist scientific view was true; but we are aware of another life.
Mathmatics;Explain to me how something can come from nothing?
Language; is taught! Case closed! Who taught man?
Calenders; Where did calendars come from? Where did the concept of measuring days or time come from? Its right in the bible.
Time: again, its right in the bible.
Measurement; why divide something, if the universe started from nothing?
Gravity; Oh please, solid proof of God; why should nothing create gravity? Why? Why would a nebulous nothing create universal laws? That denotes reason.
Smiles; come on now, why do we smile? Because of evolution? What in evolution would create a smile and why?
Doubt; same principle again; why would evolution allow doubt? If evolution is god, then why would it doubt itself?
Confidence; I am totally confident that God exist; who here can prove to me he does not?
Motivation; what better motivation than eternal life, verses eternal death can exist?
Humanity. WE, we are the proof of God!
[/QUOTE]
Mickiel, I don’t know how Jonathan Chance will view your Post #890, but regardless, you are failing. That you believe that all the things you mention must come from an outside creator is not proof, or even evidence, of God. The little questions you tacked on to each entry in the list do not demonstrate a creative being, they demonstrate only your lack of imagination.
The fact that you find it difficult or impossible to imagine how they come about without a creator means only that your imagination fails, not that there actually has to be a creative agent. What you are doing is simply trying a different version of the Ontological Argument and, frankly, Anselm and Aquinas actually did it better than you, and their arguments already failed.
I doubt that you will understand the point I am making, but you really do need to understand just how unpersuasive your “arguments” are. Every one of them is simply you denying that some event can take place when you have failed to provide any reason for anyone else to accept your declaration.
I did the exact same thing Voyager did to the list; he did not get an infraction, what makes you think I will?
And the tides! You can’t explain that! Tide comes in, tide goes out, never a miscommunication.
Everyone of your ‘proofs’ starts with the presumption of ‘creation’ or ‘design’ - you are ‘assuming purpose’ when there is no evidence of same.
This is called ‘begging the question’.
Several of your proofs are absurd on the face - take this one, for instance -
a) is not a proof or evidence
b) no one here is trying to prove something ‘does not exist’ -that is another logical impossibility. What we (or some of us) are trying to get you to understand (hell that it is) - is that there is no evidence for its existence. - or atleast you have not provided any so far.
All the ‘confidence’ or ‘belief’ in the world will not prove that unicorns exist - nor will it prove that your ‘God’ exists. (and I really also mean ‘your god’ in this case since you want to walk alone and all that).
I don’t know that you will. However, you were just told to stop throwing out lists and you immediately made another list, doing nothing but adding “I don’t believe this can happen” to each entry.
I am not suggesting that you should get a Warning. I am suggesting that your lists are pointless and that they do not support your claims, being nothing but displays of your failure of imagination. Put some thought into this thread. If you want to persuade anyone of your beliefs, provide a genuine reason why the things you claim might be true.
For example, fear could easily be the natural evolution of a brain to stimulate a being to avoid certain dangerous situations. Simply saying that fear needs to be instilled by some greater power shows only that you cannot imagine an emotions such as fear developing in nature.
Mickiel-
You’re not learning. This is Great Debates. This is where one debates. This is not where one makes unsupported assertions. One can witness here. In fact, it’s encouraged. However, you’re not even doing that. Clean up your act and actually try to defend a position.
You are now officially warned. This could be an excellent thread. But only you can make it so.
Out of the whole list, this one is actually peripherally interesting. Given the nature of evolution, the development of memory has obvious survival advantages, but what we do not really understand is where it actually is physiologically. As awesome as the brain it, it is still just a massive CPU that manages the body. Long-term memory appears to be an absolutely massive storehouse of information that the brain is able to write to and retrieve from, but the physical retention mechanism is not really known (I am sure a neuroscientist will come along just now and tell me I am full of garbanzos).
So, yeah, you could put god in there. For the time being, at least, until we do figure out how it works. But ascribing “x” to god is lazy and unproductive. If we have learned anything in the past century, it should be a lesson in how much we do not know, how much there is left to learn (which may always be more than we know). Trotting out god authoritatively is another way of saying “I don’t need to find out about that”, which is a horrifying thing to consider. I mean, learning is what we do.
Some of us seem to need god to make beautiful sunsets or kill a kitten every time somebody masturbates. That is fine, enjoy your god, I, personally, prefer the stunning awesomeness of uncertainty that god robs from our existence.
You did give the list. You did NOT give the proof.
You invite others to go through the list, item by item, and show why they are NOT proof. At the same time, you are ignoring invitations from others to show why they ARE proof.
If you believe that you have shown WHY the items on the lists are proof, you are only providing evidence that you do not share the commonly-held understanding of what the word “proof” means.
(hint: it means “Christian Bible” 
)
Actually, no it doesn’t. I’ve decided to go back to mocking you.
All I know is after reading 18 pages of this, Mickiel has proven to me that unicorns exist! Taking some of his “proofs” from his lists:
Purpose: They stab clouds with their horns and make it rain, giving us means to grow crops.
Protiens: The unicorns attach them to their backs and spread 'em around the planet.
Deja Vu: I think I’ve seen a pic of a unicorn before.
Jealousy: I wish I had big, white wings.
Curiosity: Does it hurt the unicorn if you grab the horn really, really hard?
See, everyone! Just try it! Next we’ll use the list to prove how there’s no global warming and Elvis is most definitely alive.
If the thread does not meet your demands, then close it.