Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[POI]

I've done that, at least twice...and none of your responses even comes close to negating the glaring contradiction.

Okay, I'm going to have to hold your hand here... Below is my last response for which you (chopped):

"When you misrepresent me, of course you can accuse such a thing. I've told you repeatedly that our current explorable 'universe' looks to possibly have had a "beginning", which means this is as far as we can trek back. However, when you want to refer to the term(s) - ('STEM', or 'universe', or 'naturalism'), that's all that has ever looked to have existed. And I've also repeatedly explained why consciousness cannot exist outside of it; which then means nothing mindful could have actually "created" the sighted terms listed in (brackets).".

The parts in blue represent how my position contends that 'stuff' has always been a thing in one form or another. And that further, to assert that something outside of 'stuff' created it, is absurd, as this 'creator' would require some of the same 'stuff.' Not to mention that "true creation" would be to assert that 'stuff' once did not exist at all.

So, yet again Venom, if 'god' requires some/all of the same 'stuff' to exist, then he cannot be the creator. And again, I'm asking "where's god?" Not instead "where god ISN'T?"

That is a false statement that we can address as soon as you explain how infinity can be traversed. Whether or not a mind can exist outside of time, is a separate discussion altogether....and I'm not moving on to it until my posed questions get answered. I asked my questions first, and until we put them to bed, I'm not gonna allow you to dodge and deflect your way out of your illogical position.

LOL! I have not dodged. We've agreed that 'stuff' has always existed, in some capacity or another. I'm saying that god requires some of this 'stuff'. Hence, your question is nonsensical. I'm asking "where's god", and you are instead stuck on trying to argue where he cannot be, which is outside the 'stuff' in where he would be required to possess for existence. And since you believe he also resides within STEM, when I ask you for a very simple request (that resides within STEM), in asking you to pray to this god to simply do Y and Z, you refuse. And we all KNOW why.

Hence, to put this to bed, I'll give you yet another answer.

"Physicists cannot access anything that existed before the start of time and space, but they have theories". But of course, to you, all those given theories are just denial tactics to avoid the big 'G' word, as science is corrupt. But in reality, they no more look for 'god' there than they look for fairies there. And this is when we discussed Romans 1 for a bit. This is exactly why I try not to delve into 'science' too deep with you, because you have labelled physics, cosmology, chemistry, biology, and maybe other disciplines as nothing more than 'god dodgers.'

According to Venom, the best "theory" is god, even though he requires time? And even though the teleological argument is debunked - (when just addressing the Dover trial alone). Etc etc etc...

Im not debating Carroll, I'm debating you.

You asked me for the timestamp. Until you list the (5) points expressed in the clip, I do not believe you watched it. I need you to watch it before we discuss, so you can be up-to-speed.

Yeah, my only follow up question is to ask you what could have given STEM its existence, once a "mind" is no longer a viable option. I mean, that's the logical question to ask...if not A, then B, right?

[/quote]

Hmm. Okay.... What could have given STEM its existence? How about the Mindless Universe Creating Fairy? You see exactly what I did there Venom.... I have just replaced one ludicrous unfalsifiable assertion with another.

Ok, the explain how the universe can come in to being, on naturalism.

See above.

Ok, so the question becomes; what could give nature it's beginning..

See above.

And the only thing you can say it's "Wellllll, it sure wasn't God"...without even attempting to address the question in a rational way. Wellllll, if it ain't God, then who/what? This is YOUR position, so back up your position. Can't do it, can you?

The Mindless Universe Creating Fairy. Or, in laymen's terms, the MUCF. You know Venom, had you just facilitated my simple request, ions ago, we could have avoided all your 'apologetics' nonsense. But we all know why you CAN'T.

Do you know what naturalism is? Naturalism is the belief that nature is all there is, and there is nothing outside of it. So, how could one logically assert that supernaturalism is responsible for the resulting state of naturalism? Makes no sense.

And when things do not make sense to you, invoke the illogical and invisible sky carcass, induced by way of heavy early indoctrination, geography, bad apologetics, and evolutionary processes - (which explains why humans prioritize the invoking of agency).

Dover trial again?

LOL! I know you hate stuff that destroys your position(s). The entire 'order, function, purpose' argument was taken out completely with this one court case alone. I have many other examples, that I have also mentioned in our exchange. However, at this point, the Dover trail is good enough to virtually wipe out all of your poor apologetics. IC is no longer an apologetic in which theists can use sensibly. The gaps for god continue to shrink. The trial also further solidifies the big 'E', and I know you likely want to break out your 'holy water' and sprinkle generously every time this word comes up. But hey, belief preservation is strong with you, along with misrepresenting what 'peer review' actually represents.

If a mind is incapable of producing STEM, then what did?

The MUCF, of course!

I correctly labeled it as the genetic fallacy, which is what it is.

Then tell me Venom... How is sighting an argument I agree with a genetic fallacy? I'll answer for you, to save time. The "genetic fallacy" occurs when you judge a claim as true or false based solely on its source or origin (its "genesis") rather than its actual content. I'm simply pointing to a dude, (for which I do not even like that much), who placed forth content in which I do agree with. And I explained why in another thread. So, again, you are a 'rubberstamper', and a flawed one at that.

I can only point you to Jesus. You don't want to go that direction. You call me a science-denier. I call you a Jesus-denier.

Nope! You stated god answers your prayer(s). And so too does the Bible. Put your money where your mouth is, and pray so I can be converted. Which is your goal here for me anyways. Until you do so, I instead say prayer is merely talking to yourself. Deep down, you know you cannot refute my assessment here, which is why the lame apologetics will continue.

Weak sauce.

This is code for a massive HANDWAVE. I'm holding your face to the fire here. If any of this was designed with US in mind, then why does this 'design' represent the exact opposite?

Weak sauce.

This is code for a (yet another) massive HANDWAVE. I'm holding your face to the fire here too. Are the gaps getting bigger or smaller?

[SiNcE_1985]

Okay, I'm going to have to hold your hand here... Below is my last response for which you (chopped):

"When you misrepresent me, of course you can accuse such a thing. I've told you repeatedly that our current explorable 'universe' looks to possibly have had a "beginning", which means this is as far as we can trek back. However, when you want to refer to the term(s) - ('STEM', or 'universe', or 'naturalism'), that's all that has ever looked to have existed. And I've also repeatedly explained why consciousness cannot exist outside of it; which then means nothing mindful could have actually "created" the sighted terms listed in (brackets).".

Not interested in your splaining.

Law of noncontradiction: Contradictions cannot be true at the same time, in the same way.

A: The universe (STEM) appears to have had a beginning.

B. The universe has always existed in some form.

Your gonna have to hold that L, sir.

The parts in blue represent how my position contends that 'stuff' has always been a thing in one form or another.

Then when you said it had a beginning, you contradicted this^.

And that further, to assert that something outside of 'stuff' created it, is absurd, as this 'creator' would require some of the same 'stuff.' Not to mention that "true creation" would be to assert that 'stuff' once did not exist at all.

God doesn't exist, though..according to you.

So enough about God.

Explain the origins of the universe, on naturalism.

So, yet again Venom, if 'god' requires some/all of the same 'stuff' to exist, then he cannot be the creator. And again, I'm asking "where's god?" Not instead "where god ISN'T?"

Even if God hidden, it doesn't follow that therefore, God doesn't exist.

LOL! I have not dodged. We've agreed that 'stuff' has always existed, in some capacity or another.

Sure, but the nature of that stuff, is where the contention lies.

I'm saying that god requires some of this 'stuff'.

Blank assertion, at best.

False claim, at worse.

Hence, your question is nonsensical. I'm asking "where's god", and you are instead stuck on trying to argue where he cannot be, which is outside the 'stuff' in where he would be required to possess for existence. And since you believe he also resides within STEM, when I ask you for a very simple request (that resides within STEM), in asking you to pray to this god to simply do Y and Z, you refuse. And we all KNOW why.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that God appears hidden because he doesn't exist.

Now, explain the origins of the universe (STEM), without God.

Hence, to put this to bed, I'll give you yet another answer.

"Physicists cannot access anything that existed before the start of time and space, but they have theories". But of course, to you, all those given theories are just denial tactics to avoid the big 'G' word, as science is corrupt. But in reality, they no more look for 'god' there than they look for fairies there. And this is when we discussed Romans 1 for a bit. This is exactly why I try not to delve into 'science' too deep with you, because you have labelled physics, cosmology, chemistry, biology, and maybe other disciplines as nothing more than 'god dodgers.'

According to Venom, the best "theory" is god, even though he requires time? And even though the teleological argument is debunked - (when just addressing the Dover trial alone). Etc etc etc...

Nothing burger. No substance, just rhetoric.

You asked me for the timestamp. Until you list the (5) points expressed in the clip, I do not believe you watched it. I need you to watch it before we discuss, so you can be up-to-speed.

Yeah, I asked for the time stamp after YOU brought it up.

I watched it. We discussed it. Now it's back to you and I.

No more Carroll stuff, unless you can articulate his points in the discussion.

Hmm. Okay.... What could have given STEM its existence? How about the Mindless Universe Creating Fairy? You see exactly what I did there Venom.... I have just replaced one ludicrous unfalsifiable assertion with another.

This nonsense isn't worth the time it took you to type it.

The Mindless Universe Creating Fairy. Or, in laymen's terms, the MUCF. You know Venom, had you just facilitated my simple request, ions ago, we could have avoided all your 'apologetics' nonsense. But we all know why you CAN'T.

Cool. So all that stuff down there, about answering prayers and all that good stuff..

Pray to your MUCF.

And when things do not make sense to you, invoke the illogical and invisible sky carcass, induced by way of heavy early indoctrination, geography, bad apologetics, and evolutionary processes - (which explains why humans prioritize the invoking of agency).

No substance.

LOL! I know you hate stuff that destroys your position(s). The entire 'order, function, purpose' argument was taken out completely with this one court case alone. I have many other examples, that I have also mentioned in our exchange. However, at this point, the Dover trail is good enough to virtually wipe out all of your poor apologetics. IC is no longer an apologetic in which theists can use sensibly. The gaps for god continue to shrink. The trial also further solidifies the big 'E', and I know you likely want to break out your 'holy water' and sprinkle generously every time this word comes up. But hey, belief preservation is strong with you, along with misrepresenting what 'peer review' actually represents.

A lot of talking, with very little substance.

The MUCF, of course!

Yup..

"Any explanation, no matter how absurd, is still better than the G word".

Then tell me Venom... How is sighting an argument I agree with a genetic fallacy? I'll answer for you, to save time. The "genetic fallacy" occurs when you judge a claim as true or false based solely on its source or origin (its "genesis") rather than its actual content. I'm simply pointing to a dude, (for which I do not even like that much), who placed forth content in which I do agree with. And I explained why in another thread. So, again, you are a 'rubberstamper', and a flawed one at that.

Um, no.

You said that Shermer gave a breakdown on how/why people came to believe in god's...and the underline implication is to discredit the belief, based on how it originated.

Similar to how Black atheists discredit Christian beliefs held by Black Christians, because it was given to us by "white" slave masters.

This is the Genetic Fallacy, because even if it was given to us by white slave masters, how we came to believe it has no bearing on its truth value.

Same thing you and Shermer are doing.

Nope! You stated god answers your prayer(s). And so too does the Bible. Put your money where your mouth is, and pray so I can be converted. Which is your goal here for me anyways. Until you do so, I instead say prayer is merely talking to yourself. Deep down, you know you cannot refute my assessment here, which is why the lame apologetics will continue.

You have your MUCF.

Now, get your pray on.

[POI]

Law of noncontradiction: Contradictions cannot be true at the same time, in the same way.

A: The universe (STEM) appears to have had a beginning.

B. The universe has always existed in some form.

That's not what I said at all. You either 1) know this is deliberately misrepresenting me (or) are 2) still not getting what I'm actually saying at all. Our current "universe" is only measurable to a certain point in the 'past'. However, "something" has always existed, even though we can only effectively measure to a certain point.

So enough about God.

But wait... THIS thread is asking "where's god?" All you've demonstrated is where he cannot be.

Explain the origins of the universe, on naturalism.

I "can't". Therefore, it must be the MUCF, which is just as absurd and unfalsifiable as your blank assertion.

Even if God hidden, it doesn't follow that therefore, God doesn't exist.

If god cannot exist outside time, then he cannot exist outside 'STEM'/other. Therefore, 'god' cannot logically have created something that already existed.

Sure, but the nature of that stuff, is where the contention lies.

See directly above.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that God appears hidden because he doesn't exist. Now, explain the origins of the universe (STEM), without God.

I've repeatedly asked you to pray. Both you and the Bible asserts that prayer gets answered. All of these shenanigans can all be avoided if you merely ask god to reveal two simple things. Your avoidance speaks volumes.

Nothing burger. No substance, just rhetoric.

Nope. This cuts to the heart of the entire exchange. "'Science' is completely corrupt." This is one of the reasons why I do not attend the (science and religion) arena.

I watched it.

To PROVE you watched it, please list the (5) points. Otherwise, at this point, I doubt you really watched it.

This nonsense isn't worth the time it took you to type it.

Oh contraire monfrair. My given unfalsifiable assertion is JUST as sound as yours, which is why we now see yet another HANDWAVE.

No substance.

Negative, I just completely dissected/exposed your epistemology.

A lot of talking, with very little substance.

More complete HANDWAVING. The Dover trail completely annihilates the argument for ID/IC. And again, your dreams will forever be haunted.

You said that Shermer gave a breakdown on how/why people came to believe in god's...and the underline implication is to discredit the belief, based on how it originated. Similar to how Black atheists discredit Christian beliefs held by Black Christians, because it was given to us by "white" slave masters. This is the Genetic Fallacy, because even if it was given to us by white slave masters, how we came to believe it has no bearing on its truth value. Same thing you and Shermer are doing.

I agree with the CONTENT, which just so happened to be presented during a Shermer debate. You are a bad rubberstamper, plain and simple.

You have your MUCF. Now, get your pray on.

Absolute avoidance and handwaving, AGAIN.

[SiNcE_1985]

That's not what I said at all. You either 1) know this is deliberately misrepresenting me (or) are 2) still not getting what I'm actually saying at all. Our current "universe" is only measurable to a certain point in the 'past'.

Nonsense.

Im not interested in your vague, cryptic, back-pedaling...about how the universe is only measurable to a certain point....which is what you are saying now, only after I exposed the contradiction.

No.

I'd rather go with the clear, direct, straight-talk...which is what it was when you said, "the universe appears to have a beginning".

However, "something" has always existed, even though we can only effectively measure to a certain point.

And there lies the contradiction.

You can't have it both ways, brethren.

But wait... THIS thread is asking "where's god?" All you've demonstrated is where he cannot be.

But wait.. DON'T you conclude that there is no God/sky carcass?

So, to ask where's god when you don't believe he exists...is not only a loaded question, but an irrelevant one.

I "can't". Therefore, it must be the MUCF, which is just as absurd and unfalsifiable as your blank assertion.

You're right. You can't.

So, now that your naturalism has been destroyed, let's move along.

Now, the cause of STEM, could not itself be comprised of STEM, could it?

If god cannot exist outside time, then he cannot exist outside 'STEM'/other. Therefore, 'god' cannot logically have created something that already existed.

Something had to exist outside of time, to initiate time, correct?

Because after all, you cannot create time, if you were bound (or within) it, can you?

See directly above.

I saw.

I've repeatedly asked you to pray. Both you and the Bible asserts that prayer gets answered. All of these shenanigans can all be avoided if you merely ask god to reveal two simple things. Your avoidance speaks volumes.

The fact that we're having this conversation, is God's work.

You have to respond positively to what God is presenting to you.

I am certainly no one special..however, I'm one of many vessels that God used over YOUR years, to get through to you.

Yet, you continue to reject the message, while at the same time asking for a message (evidence), which is wild.

Nope. This cuts to the heart of the entire exchange. "'Science' is completely corrupt." This is one of the reasons why I do not attend the (science and religion) arena.

I never said that, though.

Nor implied, nor insinuated.

To PROVE you watched it, please list the (5) points. Otherwise, at this point, I doubt you really watched it.

If you can't articulate why those points are valid, please don't offer them in a debate.

Oh contraire monfrair. My given unfalsifiable assertion is JUST as sound as yours, which is why we now see yet another HANDWAVE.

The price of atheism^.

I agree with the CONTENT, which just so happened to be presented during a Shermer debate. You are a bad rubberstamper, plain and simple.

Please do not cite Shermer in any kind of debate setting.

I dont beg for much. But I'm begging you here.

Absolute avoidance and handwaving, AGAIN.

Avoidance? YOU said it.

[POI]

Nonsense.

Im not interested in your vague, cryptic, back-pedaling...about how the universe is only measurable to a certain point....which is what you are saying now, only after I exposed the contradiction.

No.

I'd rather go with the clear, direct, straight-talk...which is what it was when you said, "the universe appears to have a beginning".

1) Nonsense? I'll demonstrate the nonsense. I've already spoken to this, eons ago. 'Wordplay' is important. Whether you wish to call it 'universe', 'stuff', 'materialism', 'naturalism', or other, 'something' has likely always existed. And if ("X") always existed, then it is nonsense to invoke 'creation'.

2) In providing a steelman to your unfounded assertion, (EVEN IF) 'naturalism' was instead found to have an actual beginning, <mindful states> would not logically be responsible regardless. You see Venom, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If "infinite regress cannot happen", then 'before and after' also cannot happen without the existence of time.

But wait.. DON'T you conclude that there is no God/sky carcass? So, to ask where's god when you don't believe he exists...is not only a loaded question, but an irrelevant one.

No sir. I've asked you, repeatedly, to perform a very simple task; which would immediately convert me over to your team - which is your ultimate goal. You refuse, because you know you cannot successfully do it. Thus, in the meantime, I continue to endure countless amounts of bad apologetics.

You're right. You can't. So, now that your naturalism has been destroyed, let's move along. Now, the cause of STEM, could not itself be comprised of STEM, could it?

Christians often pride themselves in understanding context, and yet, you completely missed it here.

Something had to exist outside of time, to initiate time, correct? Because after all, you cannot create time, if you were bound (or within) it, can you?

As I just answered in the last response, science has many theories about what we cannot measure. And since you misrepresent science as 'god dodgers', as well as misrepresent peer review, it's really pointless to address anyways. Further, I see that you are still harping on one of the last bastions of hope, in the ever-receding tiny gaps left for an asserted invisible "god". But alas! Aside from ALL of this, you can shut this exchange down immediately. You see, "god answers your prayer(s)". Pray to "Him" to tell you 1) what the last 6 digits of the VIN number of my newest vehicle is, and also 2) where my daughter works, and I will have no choice but to believe that you are NOT talking to yourself in prayer; and are instead receiving information in which you could not have manifested all on your own.

I will then immediately not only become a deist, but also a Christian. It's as simple as that. But, yet again, we all know why you will continue to refuse. Hence, I will continue to endure some lame apologetics just for funsies.

The fact that we're having this conversation, is God's work.

I doubt it. Now, if you disclosed information to me in which only me and 'god' could know, then I would believe you. Otherwise, it's merely Venom (and his imaginary friend) responding here, in a desperate effort to try and convert me.

I never said that, though. Nor implied, nor insinuated.

Hmm? So 'science' is not avoiding the 'G' word after all?

If you can't articulate why those points are valid, please don't offer them in a debate.

Prove you watched it, by listing the (5) points, and I will then be happy to articulate them -- (where you find 'error' in them).

Please do not cite Shermer in any kind of debate setting. I dont beg for much. But I'm begging you here.

I'll cite anyone I wish, who delivers content in which is actually sound. Heck, I've even cited Frank Turek, in regard to explaining what the "Euthyphro dilemma" means. And BTW, he makes my skin crawl. However, I cite points and content for which I agree with. This does not mean I'm committing a "genetic fallacy". No. This is instead just you being a poor "rubbertamper" again.

[Ray the atheist]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

" A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet)."
___________________________________________________

Here's my argument :



1. A perfectly loving God would provide sufficient evidence of His existence to any person who desires to know Him.
2. Many sincere seekers find no such sufficient evidence.

3. Therefore, a perfectly loving God does not exist.

[SiNcE_1985]

1) Nonsense? I'll demonstrate the nonsense. I've already spoken to this, eons ago. 'Wordplay' is important. Whether you wish to call it 'universe', 'stuff', 'materialism', 'naturalism', or other, 'something' has likely always existed. And if ("X") always existed, then it is nonsense to invoke 'creation'.

There is no wordplay.

We've been consistently referring to X as..

1. The universe.

AKA..

2. STEM (space, time, energy, matter).

Not sure the point you're making here.

2) In providing a steelman to your unfounded assertion, (EVEN IF) 'naturalism' was instead found to have an actual beginning, <mindful states> would not logically be responsible regardless. You see Venom, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If "infinite regress cannot happen", then 'before and after' also cannot happen without the existence of time.

Again, God is out of the question for the moment.

I'm granting you the non-existence of God.

Isn't that what you want?

It is, and I'm granting it to you, yet you're STILL deflecting back to it.

Why? Are you so fascinated with God that even when he's out of the equation, you just can't take your mind off him?

No sir. I've asked you, repeatedly, to perform a very simple task; which would immediately convert me over to your team - which is your ultimate goal. You refuse, because you know you cannot successfully do it. Thus, in the meantime, I continue to endure countless amounts of bad apologetics.

Well, that goal hasn't been achieved.

Can't win'em all.

Now, the only thing left to do, is dispell weak objections.

Christians often pride themselves in understanding context, and yet, you completely missed it here.

Dude completely dodged the question, and offered a nothing burger lol.

As I just answered in the last response, science has many theories about what we cannot measure. And since you misrepresent science as 'god dodgers', as well as misrepresent peer review, it's really pointless to address anyways. Further, I see that you are still harping on one of the last bastions of hope, in the ever-receding tiny gaps left for an asserted invisible "god". But alas! Aside from ALL of this, you can shut this exchange down immediately. You see, "god answers your prayer(s)". Pray to "Him" to tell you 1) what the last 6 digits of the VIN number of my newest vehicle is, and also 2) where my daughter works, and I will have no choice but to believe that you are NOT talking to yourself in prayer; and are instead receiving information in which you could not have manifested all on your own.

That was the smoothest dodge & deflect work Ive ever seen.

Very impressive.

I will then immediately not only become a deist, but also a Christian. It's as simple as that. But, yet again, we all know why you will continue to refuse. Hence, I will continue to endure some lame apologetics just for funsies.

Deism is incompatible with theism.

I doubt it. Now, if you disclosed information to me in which only me and 'god' could know, then I would believe you. Otherwise, it's merely Venom (and his imaginary friend) responding here, in a desperate effort to try and convert me.

I love you, truly, I do.

I wouldn't try, if I didn't.

But, I don't think you really want to be converted.

Hmm? So 'science' is not avoiding the 'G' word after all?

What does that have to do with you saying that my postion on science, is that it's corrupted.

Prove you watched it, by listing the (5) points, and I will then be happy to articulate them -- (where you find 'error' in them).

I'm not entertaining argument from authority requests.

I'll cite anyone I wish, who delivers content in which is actually sound. Heck, I've even cited Frank Turek, in regard to explaining what the "Euthyphro dilemma" means. And BTW, he makes my skin crawl. However, I cite points and content for which I agree with. This does not mean I'm committing a "genetic fallacy". No. This is instead just you being a poor "rubbertamper" again.

Do as you wish.

[POI]

There is no wordplay.

We've been consistently referring to X as..

1. The universe.

AKA..

2. STEM (space, time, energy, matter).

Not sure the point you're making here.

Yet again, we agree that there was never such a thing as "absolutely nothing". I say that 'something' always existed, and so do you. And that 'something' is (materialism/other), and nothing more. The burden lies upon the person who asserts anything beyond.

Again, God is out of the question for the moment. I'm granting you the non-existence of God.

It's more than 'for the moment'. It's finito.

Why? Are you so fascinated with God that even when he's out of the equation, you just can't take your mind off him?

Please remember what the TOPIC asks? If I instead presented a topic within a colony of leprechaun believers and asked --> "where's the leprechauns?", you'd likely accuse me of obsessing over and/or about leprechauns. However, I'm in this arena, where grown adults believe in invisible and imaginary floating magic carcasses who answer prayer(s).

Well, that goal hasn't been achieved. Can't win'em all. Now, the only thing left to do, is dispell weak objections.

It's quite ironic that you accuse me of dodging when you are clearly the grand master of such avoidance. Just think, this convo could have been over days ago, had you simply prayed to your invisible sky fairy, for which you claim he responds, and asked of him this very simple request. You would have done two things for which you desperately wish you could actually achieve. 1) Convert me. 2) Actually win an exchange/debate.

Dude completely dodged the question, and offered a nothing burger lol.

Even after I hinted about the sarcasm, you still missed it.

Deism is incompatible with theism.

This is just more deflection from the obvious... Please perform this requested easy and simple task and convert me today. What are you waiting for? Oh, that's right! You are really only talking to yourself. I almost forgot.

I love you, truly, I do. I wouldn't try, if I didn't. But, I don't think you really want to be converted.

More excuses, avoidance, and deflection... We all know you talk to yourself in prayer, and nothing more. Please prove me wrong and convert a skeptic today.

What does that have to do with you saying that my postion on science, is that it's corrupted.

(Paraphrased) - Whenever they come across something yet unresolved, they avoid the 'G' word. And the big 'E' word is all bio-babble.

You starting to remember?

I'm not entertaining argument from authority requests.

More terrible labeling. That's all. I've already explained ad nauseam. You are just avoiding. You clearly did not watch what I provided, which parallels my points and gives reason.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yet again, we agree that there was never such a thing as "absolutely nothing". I say that 'something' always existed, and so do you.

Indeed.

And that 'something' is (materialism/other), and nothing more.

Unproven assertion.

The burden lies upon the person who asserts anything beyond.

The burden lies upon the person making the claim.

It's more than 'for the moment'. It's finito.

No worries. That has been granted.

Please remember what the TOPIC asks? If I instead presented a topic within a colony of leprechaun believers and asked --> "where's the leprechauns?", you'd likely accuse me of obsessing over and/or about leprechauns.

I would, if I had known you don't believe in leprechauns...yet you insist upon asking probing questions about them and debating topics related to them.

If they don't exist, then simply let it go.

However, I'm in this arena, where grown adults believe in invisible and imaginary floating magic carcasses who answer prayer(s).

Then call these folks crazy and keep it moving.

Why does their obsession with this foolishness, becomes yours?

It's quite ironic that you accuse me of dodging when you are clearly the grand master of such avoidance. Just think, this convo could have been over days ago, had you simply prayed to your invisible sky fairy, for which you claim he responds, and asked of him this very simple request. You would have done two things for which you desperately wish you could actually achieve. 1) Convert me. 2) Actually win an exchange/debate.

Again, I don't believe you're asking these questions with sincerity.

Prayers to God are reserved for serious inquiries/requests...not for disingenuous, insincere, confirmation-bias seeking unbelievers.

Even after I hinted about the sarcasm, you still missed it.

Because the dodging of the question, outweighed the sarcasm.

This is just more deflection from the obvious... Please perform this requested easy and simple task and convert me today. What are you waiting for? Oh, that's right! You are really only talking to yourself. I almost forgot.

You've already established that I'll be praying to myself.

So, let it go.

More excuses, avoidance, and deflection... We all know you talk to yourself in prayer, and nothing more. Please prove me wrong and convert a skeptic today.

My point exactly^.

(Paraphrased) - Whenever they come across something yet unresolved, they avoid the 'G' word. And the big 'E' word is all bio-babble.

You starting to remember?

There is more to science, than the subject of evolution.

You do understand that, right?

More terrible labeling. That's all. I've already explained ad nauseam. You are just avoiding. You clearly did not watch what I provided, which parallels my points and gives reason.

Syllogism test..

1. I provided you an 8 minute clip of X debate.

2. I requested for you to respond to 5 points made in 8 minute clip of X debate.

3. You've yet to respond to 5 points made in 8 minute clip of X debate.

4. Therefore, you did not watch 8 minute clip of X debate.

Non sequitur.

It does not logically follow.

Fallacious reasoning.

[POI]

Unproven assertion.

Nope. We agree that naturalism is not made up and actually exists.

1) The unproven assertion is that something beyond "naturalism" exists, (i.e.) the invisible "naturalism" creating deity.
2) The unproven assertion is also that this invisible naturalism creating deity also answers prayer.

The burden lies upon the person making the claim.

I'm asking, "where's god?" Let's not beat around the bush...

1) Are you or are you not ultimately claiming that 'god' created 'naturalism'?
2) Are you or are you not ultimately claiming that 'god' answers your prayers?

******************************

1a) If your answer is 'no' to question 1), then we no longer need to address all the poor apologetics you brought forth, regarding the 'KCA', teleological, etc... And if your answer is 'yes', then referring to 'science' gets us nowhere from someone who flat out rejects much of it. Which leads us to question 2).

2a) If your answer is 'no' to question 2), then we no longer need to address this blank assertion either. If your answer is 'yes', then please facilitate my easy request.

Otherwise, you have no business attending this exchange in the first place.

I would, if I had known you don't believe in leprechauns...yet you insist upon asking probing questions about them and debating topics related to them. If they don't exist, then simply let it go.

Since your memory escapes you here, allow me to refresh it... If I lived in a place where millions and billions, (including some of my own family and friends), actually believed in leprechauns to the point of regular worship, frequently bringing them up in conversation, referencing a "book of ordinances and rules" asserting to have been guided by leprechaun(s), etc.; then I'd prolly create an anonymous thread, asking about the where-abouts of leprechauns, in a (debating leprechauns) forum arena.

Not only would I do so to avoid discourse with my family and friends, but I would be quite fascinated to know exactly why they all believe such preposterous things -- without insulting the actual people I know and love in person. You see Venom, there is no skin off my back to ask you why you believe in imaginary things. No offense, but I have no clue who you are in person. And if we were friends in real life, I likely would never bring up this topic at all, out of basic respect for your 'beliefs'. Got it?

Again, I don't believe you're asking these questions with sincerity. Prayers to God are reserved for serious inquiries/requests...not for disingenuous, insincere, confirmation-bias seeking unbelievers.

More excuses to avoid the OBVIOUS, in that you are talking to yourself in prayer. If you truly believe god answers prayer, you would have jumped at the chance to pray and convert me. Actions speak louder than words Venom. You WON'T do it because, deep down, you know prayer is talking to yourself, and nothing more.

There is more to science, than the subject of evolution. You do understand that, right?

You added 'babble' to more than just biology Venom. When peer review points away from the assertions made by the ancient book you revere, you call it babble. And since you are misrepresenting what peer review is, then to discuss virtually any science at all with you is basically a non-starter.

Syllogism test..

1. I provided you an 8 minute clip of X debate.

2. I requested for you to respond to 5 points made in 8 minute clip of X debate.

3. You've yet to respond to 5 points made in 8 minute clip of X debate.

4. Therefore, you did not watch 8 minute clip of X debate.

Non sequitur.

It does not logically follow.

Fallacious reasoning.

You truly are a bad "rubberstamper" Venom. You just keep demonstrating this over and over and over again. Correction:

1. you asked me for a timestamp
2. I did you one better, and offered an 8-minute clip
3. you stated you watched it
4. to prove that you actually watched it, I simply asked that you list the (5) points so that I can believe you
5. and here we are, many moons later.

Yet again, the debater, in the clip, sums up parallel points I would make about the lunacy of the teleological argument. Rather than type a text-wall, in which few or none would read, it's easier to watch an 8-minute clip. If you have specific objections to his points, citing them would be offering rebuttal to (my) points as well. Kapeesh?