I did say “without the CGI bs”. If God doesn’t do that, does that mean there is no God? But let’s say, for the benefit of Paddo, God did that. How would you know that wouldn’t be some aspect of nature that we didn’t know about? Everything would still appear to be natural, and could be explained away. All scientists wouldn’t just throw their hands up and say this is evidence of God. So the question remains what would you accept as evidence of God, that could not be attributed to nature. Whether currently known, or yet to be known, laws of nature. This is a discussion about how you could know that God existed. You are making claims, and venting your negativity. But you are required to partake in the discussion, to explain how you could know.
You say that because for you there is no God. Your worldview. It doesn’t matter what anyone puts forward. Your only problem is that you think your position is correct. You no doubt have probably asked for evidence of God, to someone who believes in God. But you ask in order to validate your position, not for actual evidence.
CGI?? The only bullshit I have detected, along with most others, stem from your own lies...we all agree on that. Firstly accepting mainstream science that determines we have no evidence for any god/s or that any supernatural exists, asking this mythical creature [in a thought experiment mind you] to raise all the dead and part the Pacific Ocean, would be evidence of beyond normal. How would we know it wasn't just an aspect of nature? Well firstly most of all the dead in the history of Earth, would have returned to dust, and if the Ocean floor suddenly dropped to give us a perception of the Ocean parting, science would be the first to explain that scientifically, as we do with Hurricanes, Typhoons, whirlpools, etc etc Exactly what I have told you, along with probably more I could mention. Anything possibly attributed to natural forces, would be explained by science. Stop your pretentious ratbaggery nonsense Jan. My definition of god/s [negative or otherwise] is a mythical creature, fabricated in ancient times, by ancient men, to explain the forces of nature and the universe around him. How could I know he existed?? If he raised all the dead on planet Earth, if he parted the Pacific Ocean, if he grabbed a hand full of mud and created Nana Mouskouri for me, if he enabled me to suddenly sprout wings, if he made snakes to talk English, if he transported me instantly to the other side of the world......then I would get down on my bony knees and proclaim, "Mea cupla!! mea culpa!!
My apologies....We all agree on that except river, who has been banned from the sciences for the same reasons.
There is none. To give my definition of a mythical creature that does not exist. Would you like a definition of a Unicorn also?
We have so far argued too and fro over three or four threads, over hundreds and hundreds of posts, and as yet you have no where near validated any position where any supernatural creature does or can exist. It is still a myth.
So good to rest for a while. So satisfying to see Jan is much better ..must be the waves of enlightenment from finally hearing from folk who know what they are talking about. I have given this much thought while I was watching some paint dry...actually watching resin going off...and it occurred to me that proof could be finding yourself as your soul ( I know but dewe area dealing with myth so let's indulge the same fantasy as Jan for a moment) floating above your smashed body with limbs laying about a massive car wreck, floating thru the pearly gates with god, Jesus and the holy ghost waiting with your brand new set of wings. That's would convince me. As I said Paddo Jan is obsessed with the myth and seems to think by constantly talking about god that some how all the money he/she has paid the cult for the get to the other side ticket has been well spent. By the way your post re evolution is excellent there is nothing like reading good science to make one really appreciate the one and only life we have... And to know you I am not stricken with delusional unsupported beliefs that causes one to lie in the absence of evidence is entirely satisfying. I think Jan may have realised Jan has nothing to support his/her belief and hense this thread where Jan hopefully will find some posted idea may save the day and give Jan confidence that the cash paid to the cult is well spent..well we know it is gone and the chances of getting it back are about as good as meeting any of the thousands of gods created by man. I have enjoyed a major break thru with my gear that was suffering a few missing bits and if this resin goes off anytime soon I will be doing narrow band imaging tonight. Alex
I think we are all in for a pasting. The short time you were gone, Jan and river have started an alliance..*nudge, nudge, wink, wink* so we need all be on our toes. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thanks, at least we are now open to some facts and any who want to contribute, without fear of polluting by silly creationist nonsense, or alternative pseudoscience nuts.
Same way there is evidence for anything. Do an experiment. 100 people pray to the One True God for patients to recover; 100 people pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster for patients to recover. If the One True God groups sees better results repeatably, that's evidence. Or pray to lift a rock. Or have the Pope bless the rock and cause it to float. If the rock is lifted, that's evidence. Or pray that someone is reincarnated, or has their legs restored. If those things happen - again, repeatably - that's evidence. See above. Usually not liars (with some very visible exceptions.) More misled.
Can you not see how much of an ignoramus you are? There is non, because you don’t want there to be any. Your worldview will not accept any explanation. You’ve already made up your mind. If it doesn’t exist, how can you define it? No one is asking for a definition of a Unicorn, so why bring that up?
If nothing seems to happen, would that mean God does not exist? If it did happen repeatedly, would that mean God does exist? That’s not a usual thing that occurs, if it occurs at all. But if it did occur, explain why that would be evidence of God, and not an unusual nature. You’re rattling off things that you know most probably won’t happen, to validate your worldview. Like Paddo, you’re not being serious. Are there any serious atheists out there, who want to discuss the OP?
No Jan, there is none, meaning zilch, nada, none period. If there was, science would cease to be and we would all simply pray for whatever we wanted, and Darwinism and the theory of evolution would not be fact. Jesus fucking Christ!!! You just called me an Ignoramus! Ooops sorry, I forgot about your dementia. Can you define a Unicorn Jan? [Yes] Do they exist Jan? [No] Are they real Jan? [No] Now think real hard Jan... Can you define god/s [Yes] Can god/s exist [No] Is he real [NO] Now can you see how an Ignoramus fits you to a "T"?
Serious atheists??? You are always presenting definitions so present a definition of the god you had in mind so as to remove it from the thousands of gods out there.. and please don't say you already have or there is only one god just be specific...and you may (probably not) wish to ask yourself why you are not taken seriously ... Maybe if you were serious and avoided your dishonest approach you could find others will be serious. And further shouldn't you as a theist be suggesting what the op asks for? Do you really want me to be serious? Or is that your way of saying " another crushing please" ... How about this and I am being serious and sincerely really would like to hear ( read) what you have to say... How do you know God is real? Here is your chance you have my attention and I say that whatever you say I will not critise and if you show something reasonable I may even try your approach...in other words I place my bet...all in..what are you going to do? Alex
The real discrepancy is not whether or not God is real, but what God’s nature is. You choose to accept that God is the universe. Paddo chooses to accept that God is nothing. Other atheist aren’t sure what God’s nature is. I am kind of presenting a form of the Ontological argument which was first made popular by Anselm who defined God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived".
