nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Harika wrote: »

Let's say it had a cause, then what caused it? Scientists say, we don't know yet, creationist say god.

Are you speaking for all scientists? Each and every one including the scientists who believe in God?

Or are you saying science says? Is science limited or unlimited. If it is limited what are its limitations?

Harika wrote: »

But what caused god? Why does he get the exception to walk free?

Why does God need a cause?

Harika wrote: »

So if god does not need a cause, why do you assume the universe need a cause? When it was god, was it just one, maybe more, is it still alive, has it died, has it been replaced since by another god?

I am not making that assumption but if you believe that is an assumption please explain the alternative - a universe with no cause.

Festus wrote: »

Are you speaking for all scientists? Each and every one including the scientists who believe in God?

Or are you saying science says? Is science limited or unlimited. If it is limited what are its limitations?

lol semantics

Festus wrote: »

Why does God need a cause?

If god exists he needs cause, like you stated before for the universe.

Festus wrote: »

I am not making that assumption but if you believe that is an assumption please explain the alternative - a universe with no cause.

As said, it is a possibility that it did not need a cause, anyway as we cannot travel back in time to observe it, we won't be able to verify it. Or maybe in future we travel back in time and cause it. Then we are the cause. Nice idea for a sci fi movie.

Harika wrote: »

lol semantics

Really. Ok let's go back to what you said. Are you omniscient and can therefore speak for all scientists?

Harika wrote: »

If god exists he needs cause, like you stated before for the universe.

and before time. so I ask again - why does God need cause?

Harika wrote: »

As said, it is a possibility that it did not need a cause, anyway as we cannot travel back in time to observe it, we won't be able to verify it. Or maybe in future we travel back in time and cause it. Then we are the cause. Nice idea for a sci fi movie.

argument from ignorance and argument from future knowledge. If you dispute the former you are suggesting an alternative to the Big Bang. What is the alternative?

Why do you need to deploy logical fallacies?

Festus wrote: »

please, no more whinging.

Given you are the only one doing any, you are the only one with the power to stop it happening. Again the point is clear: You are dodging whole swaths of my posts and using a variety of excuses for doing so.

Festus wrote: »

perhaps you don't. Try using your imagination.

That does indeed seem to be your approach, including imagining me saying things I never did, imagining evidence you can not or will not present, and more.

Imagination only gets us so far. At some point we have to start attempting to substantiate or verify the hypotheses that are imagination has thrown out. And thus far you have refused to do so.

I can imagine a lot, including a god. The question is can we get past merely imagining?

Festus wrote: »

My point is simpler. If the universe had a beginning then it had a cause.

And my counter point is equally simple to understand. If time was not an element, and time IS an element of causality, then your assertion that the universe had a "cause" is baseless.

Festus wrote: »

Did the universe have a beginning?

We do not know this either. We simply know that the current form the universe takes had a beginning in what we perceive as time. We do not know what, if anything, was "before" this or what "before" can even mean without time.

Festus wrote: »

Is that an appeal to the future? Is that not fallacious?

No it is not an appeal to the future. It is a comment on present existing trends.

Festus wrote: »

Deal with the evidence.

I would if you offered any.

Festus wrote: »

Insulting rhetoric noted.

Not in my post it is not. You merely contrive to find insult where none exists so you can play this card to deflect.

Festus wrote: »

What is wrong with saying God created the Universe?

Nothing wrong with saying it. Everything wrong with claiming you have substantiated it in any way. It is a perfectly good hypothesis. Nothing wrong with hypothesis, at all. You simply have not moved to, let alone succeeded, substantiate or support the hypothesis in any way. Hell I can not even get you to stop ducking, dodging and retreating to simply define what exactly you mean by "god" let alone lay out your support for the claim it exists.

Festus wrote: »

Why does God need a cause?

Why does the universe?

By nothing but special pleading theisms are simply solving the causality issue by declaring by fiat that god is except from the requirement for a cause. The ONLY explanation for this is they declare "god" to be "outside time".

Then why do we require "god"? As "time" was an attribute formed at the Big Bang whatever the explanation for it is already "outside time". We do not need to postulate an intentional intelligent agent at all. We can simply make all the same assumptions without a god, that you are desperate to make WITH one.

Festus wrote: »

and before time. so I ask again - why does God need cause?

Does everything that exists need a cause?

Festus wrote: »

argument from ignorance and argument from future knowledge. If you dispute the former you are suggesting an alternative to the Big Bang. What is the alternative?

Why do you need to deploy logical fallacies?

There are alternatives to the big bang, like the universe is expanding and crunching again and again, but so far everything points to the big bang.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Given you are the only one doing any, you are the only one with the power to stop it happening. Again the point is clear: You are dodging whole swaths of my posts and using a variety of excuses for doing so.

more whinging

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can imagine a lot, including a god.

Which god?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And my counter point is equally simple to understand. If time was not an element, and time IS an element of causality, then your assertion that the universe had a "cause" is baseless.

If the universe had no cause where did it come from?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We do not know this either. We simply know that the current form the universe takes had a beginning in what we perceive as time. We do not know what, if anything, was "before" this or what "before" can even mean without time.

Well we agree. The universe had a beginning.
Given that the universe began should it not have a cause?

Taking both points above can you provide an example of something that exists that has no cause?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No it is not an appeal to the future. It is a comment on present existing trends.

a trend - direction, in science hopefully forward and not backwards.

Scientists are working on it (present trend) but they do not yet know (future knowledge expected)

it is still an argumentum ad futuris fallacy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing wrong with saying it. Everything wrong with claiming you have substantiated it in any way. It is a perfectly good hypothesis. Nothing wrong with hypothesis, at all. You simply have not moved to, let alone succeeded, substantiate or support the hypothesis in any way. Hell I can not even get you to stop ducking, dodging and retreating to simply define what exactly you mean by "god" let alone lay out your support for the claim it exists.

Where did I say I substantiated the existence of God? I said I see the evidence and it is everywhere, all the time.

For me God exists. I can't prove it, but then again, I don't need to. I have all the evidence I need.

Festus wrote: »

more whinging

Nice of you to preface your post so accurately.

Festus wrote: »

Which god?

That is what I am asking you but you are unwilling or unable to answer. It is you postulating the existence of a god, while refusing to define your terms.

Festus wrote: »

If the universe had no cause where did it come from?

Already answered this in two posts now. Why ask it again?

Festus wrote: »

Well we agree. The universe had a beginning.

I did not say that. Again with putting words in my mouth. I merely said the current state of the universe had a beginning in what we now perceive as "time". More than that we do not know, nor did I say.

Festus wrote: »

Taking both points above can you provide an example of something that exists that has no cause?

Clearly not given that we live in a causal-temporal universe and that is all the examples I have available to me. But this is because we live in a universe where time is an attribute. We have no reason at this time to attribute time to the Big Bang. Therefore your appeal to causality fails.

There _appears_ to only be two options. Either our human concept of causality fails at the big bang and the explanation for the universe is not a "cause" in any sense that we understand it OR there was a cause. If the former, then there is no reason to evoke a god. If the latter however, then there is also no reason to evoke a god. The most you could assume by imagination is that there is a cause.... WHAT that cause is.... you are simply imagining out of thin air.

Festus wrote: »

Scientists are working on it (present trend) but they do not yet know (future knowledge expected)

it is still an argumentum ad futuris fallacy

Nope because all I have claimed is that they are working on it. I expressed no expectation as to whether we will find an answer or not. Which would be required for the fallacy to apply. Again stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

Festus wrote: »

Where did I say I substantiated the existence of God? I said I see the evidence and it is everywhere, all the time.

Where did I say you said it. I have been consistently pointing out your inability to substantiation it. You say you see evidence everywhere, yet you can not lay out one iota of it for us to read or consider. Quite telling.

Festus wrote: »

For me God exists. I can't prove it, but then again, I don't need to. I have all the evidence I need.

Then once again I urge you to consider the title of the thread, and the meaning of the word "debate".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why does the universe?

By nothing but special pleading theisms are simply solving the causality issue by declaring by fiat that god is except from the requirement for a cause. The ONLY explanation for this is they declare "god" to be "outside time".

Then why do we require "god"? As "time" was an attribute formed at the Big Bang whatever the explanation for it is already "outside time". We do not need to postulate an intentional intelligent agent at all. We can simply make all the same assumptions without a god, that you are desperate to make WITH one.

I am not desperate at all. you are the one desperate to make assumption without one

You cannot explain the origins of the universe. You cannot explain the origin of time.

it is a simple question. where did the universe come from? as not everyone is as intelligent as you can you provide a simple answer good enough for the common man?

Festus wrote: »

You cannot explain the origins of the universe. You cannot explain the origin of time.

Neither can you, so what?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nice of you to preface your post so accurately.

You're welcome/

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is what I am asking you but you are unwilling or unable to answer. It is you postulating the existence of a god, while refusing to define your terms.

I am not suggesting or assuming anything. I am saying I believe in God.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Already answered this in two posts now. Why ask it again?

because it had to come from somewhere and you haven't been able to explain where it came from.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I did not say that. Again with putting words in my mouth. I merely said the current state of the universe had a beginning in what we now perceive as "time". More than that we do not know, nor did I say.

What did we previously perceive time as? What about the previous state of the universe?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Clearly not given that we live in a causal-temporal universe and that is all the examples I have available to me. But this is because we live in a universe where time is an attribute. We have no reason at this time to attribute time to the Big Bang. Therefore your appeal to causality fails.

appeal to future knowledge fallacy noted. there fore your attempted refutation of causality is a failure.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope because all I have claimed is that they are working on it. I expressed no expectation as to whether we will find an answer or not. Which would be required for the fallacy to apply. Again stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

if there is no expectation why invoke the fact that scientists are working on it?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Where did I say you said it. I have been consistently pointing out your inability to substantiation it. You say you see evidence everywhere, yet you can not lay out one iota of it for us to read or consider. Quite telling.

Very telling. It tells me you cannot see it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then once again I urge you to consider the title of the thread, and the meaning of the word "debate".

In a debate there are two views - one for - one opposing

this thread is about the existence of God.

Proposers - God Exists
Opposers - God does not exist.

if the opposers cannot say that they are presenting the opposite position to the proposal that God exists then it is not a debate.

Harika wrote: »

Neither can you, so what?

you are right, I cannot explain it. All I can say is that it had a beginning and as all things that have a beginning have to have a cause it is reasonable to say that in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary the conclusion that God caused it is fair.

As for "so what" - Well, if the universe as no reason for being what is the point of it?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Where did I say you said it. I have been consistently pointing out your inability to substantiation it. You say you see evidence everywhere, yet you can not lay out one iota of it for us to read or consider. Quite telling.
.

Would it help if I told you what I don't see?

I do not see any evidence to support the claim that the existence of the universe is nothing more than a cosmological accident of epic proportions.

Festus wrote: »

you are right, I cannot explain it. All I can say is that it had a beginning and as all things that have a beginning have to have a cause it is reasonable to say that in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary the conclusion that God caused it is fair.

Some ancient people thought Thor caused lightnings and thunder, but nowadays it will be quite hard to find people with a decent understanding of science that believe lightning is caused by a supernatural being.

Festus wrote: »

As for "so what" - Well, if the universe as no reason for being what is the point of it?

The reason for the universe is like the question for the meaning of life, it is a very philosophical question without a real answer. Like for our sun, what does it matter what the point of the universe is?

Harika wrote: »

Some ancient people thought Thor caused lightnings and thunder, but nowadays it will be quite hard to find people with a decent understanding of science that believe lightning is caused by a supernatural being.

I agree.

Harika wrote: »

The reason for the universe is like the question for the meaning of life, it is a very philosophical question without a real answer. Like for our sun, what does it matter what the point of the universe is?

Why do you think there is no real answer?

Are you saying the sun has no point?

Are you saying the universe and life is pointless?

Festus wrote: »

Why do you think there is no real answer?

The meaning of life is a philosophical and spiritual question concerning the significance of life or existence in general.There have been a large number of proposed answers to these questions from many different cultural and ideological backgrounds. <wikipedia> AFAIK none of these proposed answers can be tested or falsified so it is a pointless question when you expect a definitive answer. Or what do you think is the meaning of life?

Festus wrote: »

Are you saying the sun has no point?

Are you saying the universe and life is pointless?

As I prefer not to speak for others, let's ask the sun, the universe and life if they think they have a point or if their life is pointless.... Okay what did they come back with?

Festus wrote: »

I am not desperate at all.

Except you are. You have no evidence to offer in this DEBATE and so you instead make some up. You are the one making assumptions, not me, such as assuming causality without time.

Festus wrote: »

You cannot explain the origins of the universe. You cannot explain the origin of time.

So? My lack of explanation for them does not add credence or evidence to the claim there is a god. The implication seeming to come out of your posts is you think it does.

The fact is we do not have full explanations for these things. And so people like yourself roll in with the "god of the gaps" card.

Festus wrote: »

it is a simple question. where did the universe come from?

The question may be simple but that does not mean answering it will be. Nor does it warrant us to simply invent simplistic answers because they please us. It might be the simplest question we have ever asked.... why are we here.... but the most important to us.

Festus wrote: »

as not everyone is as intelligent as you can you provide a simple answer good enough for the common man?

And yet my relative intelligence, such as it is, does little but lead me to a point where I can openly and honestly admit we simply: Do. Not. Know. Alas many people are not comfortable with not knowing. So they simply make stuff up to fill the gap.

Being an actual scientist requires one to be comfortable with not knowing, admitting not knowing, and to be driven by not knowing. We learn to love the questions as much as the answers, and we are at peace with knowing the answer may never come in our life time.

Festus wrote: »

You're welcome

Again I offered no thanks. I just found it useful that you accurately described the content of your post before writing it. Whinging.

Festus wrote: »

I am not suggesting or assuming anything.

You are. And I pointed out where and how.

Festus wrote: »

because it had to come from somewhere and you haven't been able to explain where it came from.

Nor have you. So what? My lack of explanation or answers does not speak to the utility or credibility of yours.

But there is YET more assumption in your point here. Why does it have to "come from somewhere"? One possible solution is that it was always there, eternally, and always will be in one form or another. You merely pile assumption on assumption then deny making assumption. Which is tragic to watch.

Festus wrote: »

What did we previously perceive time as? What about the previous state of the universe?

You are right back in the "We dont know" territory again.

Festus wrote: »

appeal to future knowledge fallacy noted.

You can note what you want, you remain wrong. I just explained to you exactly why it was not such a fallacy. You can ignore the explanation if you can not rebut it, but it does not make the facts go away.

Festus wrote: »

there fore your attempted refutation of causality is a failure.

The refutation I made of your use of causality was not based on future knowledge but CURRENT knowledge so your "therefore" does not follow. Do try again though.

Festus wrote: »

if there is no expectation why invoke the fact that scientists are working on it?

Because it is a fact. The simple fact is that we do not know, and we are working on the questions. Some of us. The rest of you are simply making things up to fill in the hole rather than acknowledge or live with it.

Festus wrote: »

Very telling. It tells me you cannot see it.

Perhaps. But your inability to offer it, discuss it, or present it suggests that the failure is likely with you, not me. If the evidence is there, and there is so much of it, you should have little issue offering it.

Festus wrote: »

In a debate there are two views - one for - one opposing this thread is about the existence of God. Proposers - God Exists
Opposers - God does not exist.

Not so. In many debates one makes a proposal and the other side negates those arguments. My question is do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer to suggest a god exists. The answer we are getting so far is: No, you do not.

The either-or structure is one you have merely invented for your convenience. Equally valid, especially when one side is proposing an unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated position, is to discuss whether the proposal is supported or not.

These feeble attempts to shift the onus of proof just smack more of that desperation of which I spoke from you earlier.

Festus wrote: »

you are right, I cannot explain it. All I can say is that it had a beginning and as all things that have a beginning have to have a cause it is reasonable to say that in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary the conclusion that God caused it is fair.

Except it is not "fair". If no explanations exist then simply inventing one does not make it the default one. It remains something you just invented. You are falling for what I call the Stork fallacy which I illustrate as follows:

Two boys with no idea about sexual reproduction have a conversation:

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them.
Boy1: What makes you think that?
Boy2: Well can you explain where babies come from?
Boy1: No.
Boy2: Aha, therefore the stork brings them!

You are, clearly, Boy2 here. You are acting like simply having AN explanation makes it somehow a credible or useful explanation, for no other reason than it is the only one anyone is offering.

While the rest of us are merely being honest and saying "We do not know. There are many hypotheses out there. God is one of them. But as a hypothesis it is entirely unsubstantiated in ANY way at this time."

Festus wrote: »

As for "so what" - Well, if the universe as no reason for being what is the point of it?

Does it require a point? More assumption from you.

Festus wrote: »

Are you saying the universe and life is pointless?

I see no reason to think they have any purpose or intention or "point" in that fashion no. Nor do I see a requirement for there to be one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except you are. You have no evidence to offer in this DEBATE and so you instead make some up. You are the one making assumptions, not me, such as assuming causality without time.

What evidence did I make up?

Festus wrote: »

What evidence did I make up?

And once again when I write a long post you ignore the majority of it, dodge, and reply to one tiny bit. There is quite the pattern emerging here.

The evidence I am referring to being "made up" is your constant references to all the evidence you observe, without offering a shred of it. I am suggesting you are simply making this up, an accusation you can negate by simply getting around to presenting some of this fabled "evidence" you claim you see so much of.

I am also referring to your assumption that causality and time apply where we have no reason to think they do, implied when you offer your re-hash of the "First Cause" argument.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So? My lack of explanation for them does not add credence or evidence to the claim there is a god. The implication seeming to come out of your posts is you think it does.

The fact is we do not have full explanations for these things. And so people like yourself roll in with the "god of the gaps" card.

and the best you can do is "I don't know, but it's not God" or the alternate "I don't know, but will will, someday, maybe"and you think that is reasonable, intelligent and logical.

The question may be simple but that does not mean answering it will be. Nor does it warrant us to simply invent simplistic answers because they please us. It might be the simplest question we have ever asked.... why are we here.... but the most important to us.

And yet my relative intelligence, such as it is, does little but lead me to a point where I can openly and honestly admit we simply: Do. Not. Know. Alas many people are not comfortable with not knowing. So they simply make stuff up to fill the gap.

Being an actual scientist requires one to be comfortable with not knowing, admitting not knowing, and to be driven by not knowing. We learn to love the questions as much as the answers, and we are at peace with knowing the answer may never come in our life time.

Again I offered no thanks. I just found it useful that you accurately described the content of your post before writing it. Whinging.

You are. And I pointed out where and how.

Nor have you. So what? My lack of explanation or answers does not speak to the utility or credibility of yours.

But there is YET more assumption in your point here. Why does it have to "come from somewhere"? One possible solution is that it was always there, eternally, and always will be in one form or another. You merely pile assumption on assumption then deny making assumption. Which is tragic to watch.

You are right back in the "We dont know" territory again.

You can note what you want, you remain wrong. I just explained to you exactly why it was not such a fallacy. You can ignore the explanation if you can not rebut it, but it does not make the facts go away.

The refutation I made of your use of causality was not based on future knowledge but CURRENT knowledge so your "therefore" does not follow. Do try again though.

Because it is a fact. The simple fact is that we do not know, and we are working on the questions. Some of us. The rest of you are simply making things up to fill in the hole rather than acknowledge or live with it.

Perhaps. But your inability to offer it, discuss it, or present it suggests that the failure is likely with you, not me. If the evidence is there, and there is so much of it, you should have little issue offering it.

Not so. In many debates one makes a proposal and the other side negates those arguments. My question is do you have any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer to suggest a god exists. The answer we are getting so far is: No, you do not.

The either-or structure is one you have merely invented for your convenience. Equally valid, especially when one side is proposing an unfalsifiable and unsubstantiated position, is to discuss whether the proposal is supported or not.

These feeble attempts to shift the onus of proof just smack more of that desperation of which I spoke from you earlier.

Except it is not "fair". If no explanations exist then simply inventing one does not make it the default one. It remains something you just invented. You are falling for what I call the Stork fallacy which I illustrate as follows:

Two boys with no idea about sexual reproduction have a conversation:

Boy1: Where do babies come from?
Boy2: The stork brings them.
Boy1: What makes you think that?
Boy2: Well can you explain where babies come from?
Boy1: No.
Boy2: Aha, therefore the stork brings them!

You are, clearly, Boy2 here. You are acting like simply having AN explanation makes it somehow a credible or useful explanation, for no other reason than it is the only one anyone is offering.

While the rest of us are merely being honest and saying "We do not know. There are many hypotheses out there. God is one of them. But as a hypothesis it is entirely unsubstantiated in ANY way at this time."

Does it require a point? More assumption from you.

I see no reason to think they have any purpose or intention or "point" in that fashion no. Nor do I see a requirement for there to be one.[/QUOTE]

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The question may be simple but that does not mean answering it will be. Nor does it warrant us to simply invent simplistic answers because they please us. It might be the simplest question we have ever asked.... why are we here.... but the most important to us.

What is wrong with simple logical answers. Why is God not an answer?

Festus wrote: »

and the best you can do is "I don't know, but it's not God"

I should construct a list of all the time you have put words in my mouth that bear no resemblence to anything I have ever actually said.

This too would be on it. I said NO SUCH THING EVER. Nor the thing you put after it either.

Where do you think this constant need you have to reply to positions I never espoused actually comes from? Is dealing with what I actually say really that hard for you?

Festus wrote: »

What is wrong with simple logical answers. Why is God not an answer?

I never said it was not an answer. Quite the opposite. AGAIN with putting words in my mouth.

I DID say it was a valid hypothesis, merely unsubstantiated in any way at this time. Again: Is dealing with what I actually say really that hard for you?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet my relative intelligence, such as it is, does little but lead me to a point where I can openly and honestly admit we simply: Do. Not. Know. Alas many people are not comfortable with not knowing. So they simply make stuff up to fill the gap.

By "We" I take it you mean the atheist cohort.

Again I ask why do you insist on "We don't know but it's not God"

Festus wrote: »

By "We" I take it you mean the atheist cohort.

No I refer to "we" as in us as a species.

Festus wrote: »

Again I ask why do you insist on "We don't know but it's not God"

Again I ask, why do you claim I say things I never said. What do you get from this? Is eroding your own credibility a goal you have?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Being an actual scientist requires one to be comfortable with not knowing, admitting not knowing, and to be driven by not knowing. We learn to love the questions as much as the answers, and we are at peace with knowing the answer may never come in our life time.

is everyone a scientist? Is every scientist of the same opinion. Are there no such creatures as scientists who believe in God?

If you are comfortable with not knowing that's fine but why go around saying " if you don't know, it's not God"

Festus wrote: »

is everyone a scientist?

Not something I ever said or claimed.

Festus wrote: »

Is every scientist of the same opinion.

Not something I ever said or claimed.

Festus wrote: »

Are there no such creatures as scientists who believe in God?

Not something I ever said or claimed.

Festus wrote: »

If you are comfortable with not knowing that's fine but why go around saying " if you don't know, it's not God"

Not something I ever said or claimed.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I never said it was not an answer. Quite the opposite. AGAIN with putting words in my mouth.

I DID say it was a valid hypothesis, merely unsubstantiated in any way at this time. Again: Is dealing with what I actually say really that hard for you?

Excellent we agree. God is an answer but we cannot substantiate in any way at this time.

Festus wrote: »

Excellent we agree. God is an answer but we cannot substantiate in any way at this time.

Then let us leave it on the shelf with all the other unsubstantiated hypotheses that are out there, until such time as you manage to find some substantiation. The god hypothesis is merely an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis that some people make up to answer questions that are currently not answered.

But nice of you to finally admit you can not substantiate the claim in ANY way at this time. Not many of the Theistic cohort I communicate with would be so honest. They would instead stick to your previous "There is evidence everywhere" rhetoric while maintaining an impressive array of cop outs for laying out what a single shred of it actually is.

Mod: Festus & Nozz - this thread is becoming unreadable with these essay length replies and line-by-line analysis of posts. Cut out the soapboxing and pointless sniping please. Any further allegations of whinging will be met with cards and/or bans.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then let us leave it on the shelf with all the other unsubstantiated hypotheses that are out there, until such time as you manage to find some substantiation. The god hypothesis is merely an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis that some people make up to answer questions that are currently not answered.

But nice of you to finally admit you can not substantiate the claim in ANY way at this time. Not many of the Theistic cohort I communicate with would be so honest. They would instead stick to your previous "There is evidence everywhere" rhetoric while maintaining an impressive array of cop outs for laying out what a single shred of it actually is.

As stated, I am more than happy to accept your admission that God is an answer. For me God is the answer

At no stage did I ever say that I could prove God exists. I said that the evidence is everywhere, and I can see it, but I cannot tell you how to see it. Finding God is something you have to do on your own. If you want to that is. If you don't want to that is your choice.

God bless you

+