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]

Telling me what isn't, doesn't tell me what it is; especially considering the fact that that was the question; what is it (if not God).

Since we know a mindful agency cannot be included, then WHO really care? Further, I don't think anything exists outside the 'universe.' I think 'STEM", in some form or another, may have always existed? And again, if 'matter' has always existed, in one form or another, then to infer (creation) is a nonsensical concept to begin with...

You are so busy focusing on a God

Another reminder... The title of THIS topic is called, "Where's God"? And the OP questions lean not only to (a) god, but questions the where-abouts of the claimed Christian god? So, tell me Venom, WHERE is he? We now know that he cannot exist outside of 'STEM'.

We also know that things that actually begin to exist without a direct, conscious designing cause typically arise through natural, unguided processes. Key examples span physics, chemistry, and meteorology, ranging from spontaneous quantum events to naturally formed physical patterns. But you will just deny some/all of it. Examples:

Virtual Particles: In quantum mechanics, pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles spontaneously pop into and out of empty space (quantum vacuum) without any prior cause, governed only by inherent probabilistic laws.

Radioactive Decay: Individual atoms, like unstable uranium isotopes, randomly decay and emit radiation at completely unpredictable times, a fundamentally uncaused and spontaneous phenomenon.

Snowflakes & Crystals -- (mentioned in another thread): The highly intricate, six-sided geometric structure of a snowflake emerges naturally as water molecules freeze on dust particles, relying on molecular bonding and temperature rather than a direct, hands-on design.

Tornados & Dust Devils: These complex atmospheric funnels form abruptly when specific, unguided conditions of wind shear and thermal instability align in the atmosphere.

Wave Function Collapse: In quantum physics, a particle's physical state exists in multiple probabilities simultaneously until it spontaneously collapses into a definite, single state upon interaction with a physical instrument, a phenomenon without a deterministic cause.

if God doesn't exist, then what can give the universe (STEM) its beginning..since you admitted that STEM began to exist.

I don't know that 'STEM' ever actually began to exist? But even if it did, at best, something "mindless" would logically have to be the culprit.

Oh, but you are apparently here to give history lessons.

No Venom. If you keep handwaving it too, than I may start to do the same as I sometimes do for 'science.' You are an avid peer reviewed science denier, for years now on this forum arena.

You are appealing to authority, sir. If you can't articulate why Carroll's points are valid, then all you're doing is saying "Because Carroll said so", which is not a good argument...and weak sauce.

You've missed my point again. You asked me for a timestamp. I did you one better and gave you the entire 8-minute monologue argument. To prove you actually watched it, (as you say you have), please simply list the (5) points that he made? They can be really short bullet points. If you feel his arguments/points are "bad", we can certainly discuss them. Thanx.

Like I said above; you may not be here to teach science, but history is another story, huh? Now, use that same energy to actually answer my question of what could give STEM its beginning?

I'm going to re-issue my point here, since you have not. You asked me to demonstrate that early science was heavily intertwined with theology. I demonstrated. My point was to show that the 'god of the gaps' keeps getting smaller and smaller. And that you have very few spots left to try and argue, unlike centuries ago, where early science/others thought god was hiding, but actually was not.

With God: Poor design. With Nature: No design at all. ID is still not negated, even on your subjective, opinionated theory.

More apologetics cope is all you have demonstrated here. Further, ID is negated, with the bacterial flagellum alone. Which ironically was the theist's play as the 'gotcha', in the (Dover trial), as an example. The theist's intent was to demonstrate IC. However, IC was completely demolished -- and theists were left with nothing but to throw tantrums; but with absolutely nothing to actually back up those tantrums.

I don't know.

The Bible itself mentions (paraphrased) - 'later pain in childbirth.' We know pain occurs due to a narrow birth canal. I guess this means god narrowed women's birth canals as a result of 'sin'? Meaning, prior to 'the fall', birth canals would need to be much much much wider to avoid pain. And I do not have to get into the logistics about how ludicrous this would be, as these women would have had quite large vaginas.

Heaven/Hell is different.

My response was a little facetious here. If killing 'innocent' children (on earth) slowly is deemed "good," then it's a free-for-all --- (god or no god). I guess suffering (on earth) is irrelevant to god?

If God doesn't exist, then none of these questions are relevant.

I'm asking someone who believes. So please answer the question.

[SiNcE_1985]

Since we know a mindful agency cannot be included, then WHO really care?

Oh, you cared all the way up to the point of ruling God out.

But after that, the quest for knowledge comes to an end, and then it becomes "Who cares?"

Basically, "As long as it isn't the "G" word, I don't care".

Weak sauce.

Further, I don't think anything exists outside the 'universe.' I think 'STEM", in some form or another, may have always existed? And again, if 'matter' has always existed, in one form or another, then to infer (creation) is a nonsensical concept to begin with...

Then you're contradicting yourself.

You: The universe had a beginning.

Also you: I think STEM has always existed.

And the whole "matter has always existed in some form" is just a variant of the first law of thermodynamics.

Matter could not have always existed for those same philosophical problems that you've avoided which deals with an infinite past.

Another reminder... The title of THIS topic is called, "Where's God"? And the OP questions lean not only to (a) god, but questions the where-abouts of the claimed Christian god?

The existence of God must be established first, before you can establish whereabouts.

If you don't believe God exists, then asking questions about his whereabouts is crazy work.

So, tell me Venom, WHERE is he?

If God exists, he is omnipresent.

We now know that he cannot exist outside of 'STEM'.

I disagree. Can you prove this assertion?

We also know that things that actually begin to exist without a direct, conscious designing cause typically arise through natural, unguided processes. Key examples span physics, chemistry, and meteorology, ranging from spontaneous quantum events to naturally formed physical patterns. But you will just deny some/all of it. Examples:

Virtual Particles: In quantum mechanics, pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles spontaneously pop into and out of empty space (quantum vacuum) without any prior cause, governed only by inherent probabilistic laws.

Radioactive Decay: Individual atoms, like unstable uranium isotopes, randomly decay and emit radiation at completely unpredictable times, a fundamentally uncaused and spontaneous phenomenon.

Snowflakes & Crystals -- (mentioned in another thread): The highly intricate, six-sided geometric structure of a snowflake emerges naturally as water molecules freeze on dust particles, relying on molecular bonding and temperature rather than a direct, hands-on design.

Tornados & Dust Devils: These complex atmospheric funnels form abruptly when specific, unguided conditions of wind shear and thermal instability align in the atmosphere.

Wave Function Collapse: In quantum physics, a particle's physical state exists in multiple probabilities simultaneously until it spontaneously collapses into a definite, single state upon interaction with a physical instrument, a phenomenon without a deterministic cause.

This is a mix of bio, cosmo, and chemi babble.

I already addressed the quantum thang.

You didn't respond to it, so as far as I'm concerned, it stands.

I don't know that 'STEM' ever actually began to exist?

Nope. You already said the universe began to exist.

Too late....you made the statement, and you're gonna to stand on it.

But even if it did, at best, something "mindless" would logically have to be the culprit.

Blank assertion.

No Venom. If you keep handwaving it too, than I may start to do the same as I sometimes do for 'science.' You are an avid peer reviewed science denier, for years now on this forum arena.

Weak sauce.

You've missed my point again. You asked me for a timestamp. I did you one better and gave you the entire 8-minute monologue argument. To prove you actually watched it, (as you say you have), please simply list the (5) points that he made? They can be really short bullet points. If you feel his arguments/points are "bad", we can certainly discuss them. Thanx.

After his response, Craig offered a rebuttal.

So I refer you to Craig's rebuttal of the 8 minute monologue.

You didn't provide a 5 point breakdown of Carroll's point, so what make you think that I'm obligated to appease you by giving you a 5 point breakdown of Craig's response?

I'm going to re-issue my point here, since you have not. You asked me to demonstrate that early science was heavily intertwined with theology. I demonstrated. My point was to show that the 'god of the gaps' keeps getting smaller and smaller. And that you have very few spots left to try and argue, unlike centuries ago, where early science/others thought god was hiding, but actually was not.

I'm going to re-issue my point as well; as you were also asked what could give STEM its beginning.

You dodged that question...but when I asked about your assertion that science was heavily intertwined with theology, all of a sudden you have an essay for me.

Again, when you don't know; dodgy deflections.

When you do know; free information for everyone.

Weak sauce.

More apologetics cope is all you have demonstrated here. Further, ID is negated, with the bacterial flagellum alone. Which ironically was the theist's play as the 'gotcha', in the (Dover trial), as an example. The theist's intent was to demonstrate IC. However, IC was completely demolished -- and theists were left with nothing but to throw tantrums; but with absolutely nothing to actually back up those tantrums.

Okkk.

The Bible itself mentions (paraphrased) - 'later pain in childbirth.' We know pain occurs due to a narrow birth canal. I guess this means god narrowed women's birth canals as a result of 'sin'? Meaning, prior to 'the fall', birth canals would need to be much much much wider to avoid pain. And I do not have to get into the logistics about how ludicrous this would be, as these women would have had quite large vaginas.

So, don't believe in the Bible then.

What else is there to talk about?

My response was a little facetious here. If killing 'innocent' children (on earth) slowly is deemed "good," then it's a free-for-all --- (god or no god). I guess suffering (on earth) is irrelevant to god?

First, we need to establish where you get your moral compass from, and what gives "it" the authority to tell is what is good, or bad

I'm asking someone who believes. So please answer the question.

I've had prayers answered in real-time, so God is not hidden from me.

So, to answer the question of the thread; speak for yourself, because just because he is hidden from you, doesn't mean that those who actually believe in him shares your experience.

[POI]

Oh, you cared all the way up to the point of ruling God out. But after that, the quest for knowledge comes to an end, and then it becomes "Who cares?" Basically, "As long as it isn't the "G" word, I don't care". Weak sauce.

I've stated, multiple times, that minds cannot exist outside of time. Which means that mindful actions can only exist within 'STEM'. Which means if you want to claim that god is eternal, then so is 'STEM.' And if 'STEM' has always existed, like you claim god has always existed, then both 'god' and 'STEM' would have always existed. Which then means 'creation' is an irrelevant term regardless. HOWEVER, we can demonstrate 'STEM' or the 'universe.' You can only assert 'god'. But regardless, 'god' cannot create something that is already in existence.

Then you're contradicting yourself.

No, I haven't. You, of all people, should be aware of context. You theists are often spewing out the term 'context' when we skeptics post scripture which sounds wacky. Please note that I placed both the terms 'universe' and 'STEM' in quotes. See below...

You: The universe had a beginning.

The current state of our 'universe' looks to have had a beginning, yes. We currently do not know what happened prior to the current state. Therefore, invisible sky carcass waved his magic wand? Nah. I already gave you examples of things that begin to exist without a direct, conscious designing cause and you handwaved it.

Also you: I think STEM has always existed.
And the whole "matter has always existed in some form" is just a variant of the first law of thermodynamics.
Matter could not have always existed for those same philosophical problems that you've avoided which deals with an infinite past.

Then you have to argue that at one 'point' is the 'past', that (absolutely nothing) existed. But I've already presented the problems here, way-back-when, as we know that the concept of 'before and after' require the existence of time, which is a fundamental part of 'STEM.'

1) The existence of God must be established first, before you can establish whereabouts. If you don't believe God exists, then asking questions about his whereabouts is crazy work.

2) I've had prayers answered in real-time, so God is not hidden from me.

Please re-read the OP Venom.

1) Negative. I'm actually quite easy and open Venom. Heck, I've even given you clear instruction as to what would convince me immediately. YOU won't do it, because you know prayer does not really work.

2) Great! You can convert me immediately if you pray to god to give you the following answers about me:

1. How much does POI weigh (naked)?
2. What are the last 6 digits of my newest car's VIN number?

Failure to give these very simple answers means you are instead likely speaking to yourself in prayer, as your god is said to apparently know all and also wants all to follow him. Answering any/all prayers would include these very benign and earnest requests to bring a skeptic to the Lord. I'll be waiting,.. Awaiting the apologetic excuses, that is...

If God exists, he is omnipresent.

Kind of like Santa Claus, in that he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good... You know the rest of the song.

This is a mix of bio, cosmo, and chemi babble. I already addressed the quantum thang. You didn't respond to it, so as far as I'm concerned, it stands.

I'm sorry Venom but I do not take very seriously anyone who handwaves copious amounts of peer reviewed science. I stopped wasting my time when I asked you a specific question about the scientific community and you responded with (paraphrased) -- "pretty much.' Seems we are at an impasse, where you think much of science is corrupt, where I can instead demonstrate that pseudoscientists are corrupt, like in the Dover trial for instance.

Blank assertion.

Nope, this is more demonstrating of either a) possessing a poor memory or b) just being dishonest here.... Yet again, in practicing continued patience, for a god to perform a series of events requires time. Which (again) means god cannot be outside time. Time is a part of 'STEM', which again means that god could not logically have induced an action to create ('STEM'/'universe').

After his response, Craig offered a rebuttal. So I refer you to Craig's rebuttal of the 8 minute monologue. You didn't provide a 5 point breakdown of Carroll's point, so what make you think that I'm obligated to appease you by giving you a 5 point breakdown of Craig's response?

Okay, now I'm really starting to not believe you, when you stated you watched the video. Please very briefly list the (5) points or I will just assume more dishonesty here.

I'm going to re-issue my point as well; as you were also asked what could give STEM its beginning. You dodged that question...but when I asked about your assertion that science was heavily intertwined with theology, all of a sudden you have an essay for me.

Since you have made ZERO effort to address it, my point stands in that 'the god of the gaps' is getting ever so much smaller; to the point where you are left with applying these lousy apologetics, which have been debunked in court, like IC.

Again, when you don't know; dodgy deflections. When you do know; free information for everyone. Weak sauce.

Wrong again Venom. I'm not your science teacher. Based upon your specific worldview, you are required to handwave tons of peer reviewed science in multiple disciplines. If I was instead conversing with an old earther, then maybe I would engage you a little differently. But you are so fundamentally off the mark, I'm not going to waste countless responses going over the basics for which you just snub anyways.

Okkk.

This is code for, "yes, I know I cannot really argue for IC anymore, which is why I do not really bring it up.'

So, don't believe in the Bible then. What else is there to talk about?

What else is there to talk about? Instead of issuing a 'handwave' here, you know it is nonsense to think that women's vaginal canals had to be much larger before the 'fall.' And after 'sin', god narrowed their canals to cause pain? Well, maybe that was a 'good' thing that god did, being that men would then start to actually experience pleasure in intercourse (after the 'fall').

I tell you, the mental gymnastics you folks have to endure to retain 'belief' in this stuff.

First, we need to establish where you get your moral compass from, and what gives "it" the authority to tell is what is good, or bad

It's comical when apologists say this. They say this because they too think it's wacked.

According to god, poisoning/killing a million folks a year, while they unknowingly drink a tainted vital fluid, is 'good.'

[SiNcE_1985]

I've stated, multiple times, that minds cannot exist outside of time. Which means that mindful actions can only exist within 'STEM'. Which means if you want to claim that god is eternal, then so is 'STEM.' And if 'STEM' has always existed, like you claim god has always existed, then both 'god' and 'STEM' would have always existed. Which then means 'creation' is an irrelevant term regardless. HOWEVER, we can demonstrate 'STEM' or the 'universe.' You can only assert 'god'. But regardless, 'god' cannot create something that is already in existence.

You were given an analogy where God was taken out of the equation (since you don't believe in him anyway)...I asked you what could give STEM its existence, considering STEM began to exist.

If God doesn't exist, then nature is the only logical answer...so I'm curious as to how this could happen.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

No, I haven't. You, of all people, should be aware of context. You theists are often spewing out the term 'content' when we skeptics post scripture which sounds wacky. Please note that I placed both the terms 'universe' and 'STEM' in quotes. See below...

Everything is in context. The universe is everything that physically exists. It doesn't get anymore in context than that.

The current state of our 'universe' looks to have had a beginning, yes.

Ok, and everything that begins to exist a cause.

Particularly, an external cause.

And there lies the question; what could be an external cause of the universe, that could give the universe it's beginning.

And that's where things begin to get noticably uncomfortable for the naturalist, because they're unable to appeal to their precious science.

And speaking of "noticably uncomfortable", that's what you are right now.

We currently do not know what happened prior to the current state.

We know that something external to the universe gave it its beginning.

That is when you conduct a comprehensive analysis on what it would take to create an entire universe, one which is also suitable for human life.

And once you do that, you're left with a undeniable conclusion...one which people like you want to avoid and wouldn't touch with a 10ft pole.

Therefore, invisible sky carcass waved his magic wand? Nah.

Ok, again..cool.

So enlighten me on what could give STEM its beginning.

If God is out of the equation, then how is it going down?

I already gave you examples of things that begin to exist without a direct, conscious designing cause and you handwaved it.

I already responded this, and if my response wasn't good enough, here is another one...

When you observe a universe come in to being without a direct, conscious, designing cause...you'll have my attention.

Keyword: Observe.

Until then, we're moving right along from unobserved, speculative, wishful thinking.

Then you have to argue that at one 'point' is the 'past', that (absolutely nothing) existed.

Um, no, that's not what I have to argue... because that is an absurd position.

But I've already presented the problems here, way-back-when, as we know that the concept of 'before and after' require the existence of time, which is a fundamental part of 'STEM.'

You're preaching to the choir, sir.

Please re-read the OP Venom.

1) Negative. I'm actually quite easy and open Venom. Heck, I've even given you clear instruction as to what would convince me immediately. YOU won't do it, because you already know nothing will come from it.

Take it up with God. Apparently, you ain't open enough.

2) Great! You can convert me immediately if you pray to god to give you the following answers about me:

1. How much does POI weigh (naked)?
2. What are the last 6 digits of my newest car's VIN number?

Failure to give these very simple answers means you are instead likely speaking to yourself in prayer, as your god is said to apparently know all and also wants all to follow him. Answering any/all prayers would include these very benign and earnest requests to bring a skeptic to the Lord. I'll be waiting,.. Awaiting the apologetic excuses, that is...

Responses like this is why you can't be taken seriously.

Kind of like Santa Claus, in that he knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or god... You know the rest of the song.

We (myself and God) are not amused.

I'm sorry Venom but I do not take very seriously anyone who handwaves copious amounts of peer reviewed science. I stopped wasting my time when I asked you a specific question about the scientific community and you responded with (paraphrased) -- "pretty much.' Seems we are at an impasse, where you think much of science is corrupt, where I can instead demonstrate that pseudoscientists are corrupt, like in the Dover trial for instance.

You keep baiting me to discuss the Dover trial..which is a subject of which I can care less.

Nope, this is more demonstrating of either a) possessing a poor memory or b) just being dishonest here.... Yet again, in practicing continued patience, for a god to perform a series of events requires time. Which (again) means god cannot be outside time. Time is a part of 'STEM', which again means that god could not logically have induced an action to create ('STEM'/'universe').

God is out of the equation.

Okay, now I'm really starting to not believe you, when you stated you watched the video. Please very briefly list the (5) points or I will just assume more dishonesty here.

I'll "briefly" list the (5) points, when you "briefly" answer my question of what could give STEM its beginning, if not God.

Since you have made ZERO effort to address it, my point stands in that 'the god of the gaps' is getting ever so much smaller; to the point where you are left with applying these lousy apologetics, which have been debunked in court, like IC.

Whatever will help you sleep good tonight.

Wrong again Venom. I'm not your science teacher.

Then I didn't need the history lesson, because you aren't my history teacher, either.

Based upon your specific worldview, you are required to handwave tons of peer reviewed science in multiple disciplines.

Peer reviewed science cannot save you.

If I was instead conversing with an old earther, then maybe I would engage you a little differently. But you are so fundamentally off the mark, I'm not going to waste countless responses going over the basics for which you just snub anyways.

If God doesn't exist, then your entire time on this forum is/was a waste.

Not trying to be mean-spirited, but that's what it boils down to.

What else is there to talk about? Instead of issuing a 'handwave' here, you know it is nonsense to think that women's vaginal canals had to be much larger before the 'fall.' And after 'sin', god narrowed their canals to cause pain? Well, maybe that was a 'good' thing that god did, being that men would then start to actually experience pleasure in intercourse (after the 'fall').

I never had a problem with a woman's vaginal canal.

Maybe you do?

I tell you, the mental gymnastics you folks have to endure to retain 'belief' in this stuff.

The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. 1Corinth 1:18

I guess that's why it seems like foolishness to you.

According to god, poisoning/killing a million folks a year, while they unknowingly drink a vital fluid, is 'good.'

God doesn't exist, though.

So what's the problem?

[POI]

You were given an analogy where God was taken out of the equation (since you don't believe in him anyway)...I asked you what could give STEM its existence, considering STEM began to exist.

If God doesn't exist, then nature is the only logical answer...so I'm curious as to how this could happen.

Are you going to answer the question or not?

I already have. Still practicing extreme patience... "STEM"/"universe", in some form or another, has likely always existed in some manner or another. Hence, to invoke any creation (at all) is as absurd as you asking "what is "souther" than the South Pole?" Naturalism is all there is... To invoke anything beyond this demonstrated reality carries a rather large burden of proof not yet met. Maybe you'll be the first? But so far, failed apologetics is all I've read.

Ok, and everything that begins to exist a cause. Particularly, an external cause.

This statement is patently false. Virtual particles, spontaneous emission, and wave function collapse -- are just (3) examples, mostly in the field of quantum mechanics alone; which demonstrate(s) beginning to exist with no prior cause or external forces to induce the observed event. Commence with the handwaving to come....

And there lies the question; what could be an external cause of the universe, that could give the universe it's beginning.

Your lack in knowledge to intermediate science compels you to continue to ask ignorant questions, like for example -- "what is colder than absolute zero?". Meaning, your question is nonsensible when presented to an actual physicist.

*****(I skipped your repetitive false premises)****

Take it up with God. Apparently, you ain't open enough.

Neither was "Paul of Tarsus" or "Doubting Thomas", or the countless said folks, from the OT, who were forced to know god at least existed without even asking.

Responses like this is why you can't be taken seriously.

Nope. Responses like this cut to the heart of your belief and expose it's failure. You claim god answers prayer. Pray for god to reveal to me, while using (you) as the vessel. You will instead issue lame excuses because you know, deep down, that prayer works no better than random coincidence and chance. Which-is-to-say, prayer is nothing more than talking to yourself. If you would like to prove me wrong, I gave you a very simple task.

We (myself and God) are not amused.

Correction. You mean (you and also yourself).

You keep baiting me to discuss the Dover trial..which is a subject of which I can care less.

I know, because it completely wrecks the apologetic idea of IC, which basically destroys your 'order, design, function' argument.

I'll "briefly" list the (5) points, when you "briefly" answer my question of what could give STEM its beginning, if not God.

I suggest you actually 'watch' the video now. If/when you would like to discuss the (5) topics, so I can destroy the fine-tuning argument even more, I will be more than happy to do so for you.

Whatever will help you sleep good tonight.

Not once did you try to refute my point, in that the "god of the gaps" keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller. You basically only have a few desperate scraps left.

Then I didn't need the history lesson, because you aren't my history teacher, either.

Then stop trying to bait me into presenting stuff for either and give me what I asked for in the OP, which does not include NEITHER science nor history.

I never had a problem with a woman's vaginal canal. Maybe you do?

You apparently would have had a problem had you tried to access one before "the fall". I guess 'good' design was creating extremely wide vaginal canals. And after 'sin', god cranked them down a lot!

God doesn't exist, though.

Great, in applying Occam's Razor, this would account for why the vast majority of water is poisonous to humans --- in that this planet was not "designed" for us at all. Again, no more so than the concrete layer designed it to facilitate later cracks filled with a few weeds. Which would again mean that EVEN IF there was a designer, humans were nowhere near the focus. But since we know conscious cannot exist as an "external force' to "naturalism", it's a moot point.

[SiNcE_1985]

I already have. Still practicing extreme patience... "STEM"/"universe", in some form or another, has likely always existed in some manner or another.

Again..

You: The universe had a beginning.

Also you...

You: The universe has always existed in some manner or another.

This contradiction is lingering, and no amount of "splaining" will get you out of it.

Hence, to invoke any creation (at all) is as absurd as you asking "what is "souther" than the South Pole?

You already failed with that analogy when you used the "North" version of it.

Did you think that by changing the direction from N to S, would somehow magically make it any less a false equivalency?

Naturalism is all there is...

Blank assertion.

"God is the supreme being of the entire universe"

See, anyone can make an assertion.

Do you have anything besides empty statements?

To invoke anything beyond this demonstrated reality carries a rather large burden of proof not yet met. Maybe you'll be the first? But so far, failed apologetics is all I've read.

Weak sauce.

This statement is patently false. Virtual particles, spontaneous emission, and wave function collapse -- are just (3) examples, mostly in the field of quantum mechanics alone; which demonstrate(s) beginning to exist with no prior cause or external forces to induce the observed event. Commence with the handwaving to come....

I already addressed the whole "virtual particles" nonsense and why it simply doesn't work, and I've yet to get an adequate response to what I said.

The name of the "virtual particles" nonsense in quantum physics, is called the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI)...which is one of many interpretations of QM.

Now, if the CI is such a good response to the first premise of the KCA (everything that begins to exist has a cause), then why didn't Carroll use this objection in his debate with Craig?

He didn't.

No only didn't he use it in the debate, but here is a fun fact...

In the Craig vs Carroll debate, during the Q&A segment, an audience member asked a question about the CI, and Carroll stated that, not only does he agree with Craig that the CI is not true, but he even stated that the CI is "nonsense and no thoughtful person still holds to it".

Yet, here you are using it as a defeater of the causal principle (P1 of the KCA)....and Carroll, yo homeboy, is calling you an unthoughtful person for believing in it (or at the very least, using it in a debate).

Carroll stated that no one still holds to it, which I already knew that to be the case...as I stated previously that this objection is old and played out and whoever still uses it just isn't up-to-date on their objections...or worse, just an unthoughtful person as Carroll stated.

Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Your lack in knowledge to intermediate science compels you to continue to ask ignorant questions, like for example -- "what is colder than absolute zero?". Meaning, your question is nonsensible when presented to an actual physicist.

*****(I skipped your repetitive false premises)****

Nope.

You already started that the universe began to exist...and..

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

And I'm asking what could give STEM its beginning.

Remember, when I asked the question about the black widow spider, you were quick to get your Google on, and offer a response.

Now, "Stop that, you can't ask such a question".

Weak sauce.

Quantum physics won't/can't help you here, buddy.

Neither was "Paul of Tarsus" or "Doubting Thomas", or the countless said folks, from the OT, who were forced to know god at least existed without even asking.

Again, for the second time, the Bible is full of incidences of people still not believing, despite what they've seen.

So there is no guarantee that more people will believe, should they see X or Y.

That is simply an unsupported premise on your part.

You are to respond positively to the evidence you are given, which you haven't been.

So, that's on you.

Nope. Responses like this cut to the heart of your belief and expose it's failure. You claim god answers prayer. Pray for god to reveal to me, while using (you) as the vessel. You will instead issue lame excuses because you know, deep down, that prayer works no better than random coincidence and chance. Which-is-to-say, prayer is nothing more than talking to yourself. If you would like to prove me wrong, I gave you a very simple task.

Cool. So, continue in your unbelief. Nothing more to talk about, right?

Correction. You mean (you and also yourself).

My bad. Silly me.

I know, because it completely wrecks the apologetic idea of IC, which basically destroys your 'order, design, function' argument.

How is fine-tuning best explained, on naturalism?

You can appeal to Carroll all you want. I just want your response, for the records, on here.

I suggest you actually 'watch' the video now. If/when you would like to discuss the (5) topics, so I can destroy the fine-tuning argument even more, I will be more than happy to do so for you.

Weak sauce.

Not once did you try to refute my point, in that the "god of the gaps" keeps getting smaller and smaller and smaller. You basically only have a few desperate scraps left.

Weak sauce

Then stop trying to bait me into presenting stuff for either and give me what I asked for in the OP, which does not include NEITHER science nor history.

You asked why haven't you felt God's presence, and I answered.

The answer ain't satisfying for you...so you should just chuck it up to "Because God doesn't exist".

End of discussion. Right?

You apparently would have had a problem had you tried to access one before "the fall". I guess 'good' design was creating extremely wide vaginal canals. And after 'sin', god cranked them down a lot!

1 chance in 10^10^123 stands, regardless of your assessment of anything that happened before or after the fall.

Great, in applying Occam's Razor, this would account for why the vast majority of water is poisonous to humans --- in that this planet was not "designed" for us at all. Again, no more so than the concrete layer designed it to facilitate later cracks filled with a few weeds. Which would again mean that EVEN IF there was a designer, humans were nowhere near the focus. But since we know conscious cannot exist as an "external force' to "naturalism", it's a moot point.

Ok, so explain fine-tuning on naturalism.

[POI]

This contradiction is lingering, and no amount of "splaining" will get you out of it.

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).

You already failed with that analogy when you used the "North" version of it.

The analogy stands, as true 'creation', (meaning creating 'something' from 'not something'), cannot logically happen. If you instead wish to shift gears and argue for a "change agent", as the terms in (brackets) has always existed, then be my guest. We can then pivot and go from there...

Weak sauce.

I'm afraid not Venom. Whether you like it or not, even you are not going to attest against the fact that "naturalism" exists. It's YOUR burden to actually demonstrate anything beyond, like (super)naturalism. But so far, to use lingo you understand, apologetic-babble ain't gonna cut it.

I already addressed the whole "virtual particles" nonsense and why it simply doesn't work, and I've yet to get an adequate response to what I said. The name of the "virtual particles" nonsense in quantum physics, is called the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI)...which is one of many interpretations of QM.

Oh, pardon me Venom, but I do not take your 'scientific' responses very seriously -- when you are also well known for flat out denying so much peer reviewed science, by assuming these scientific facts are both 1) conspiratorial as well as based upon 2) a mere popularity contest.

Now, if the CI is such a good response to the first premise of the KCA (everything that begins to exist has a cause), then why didn't Carroll use this objection in his debate with Craig?

You cannot have your cake and eat it too Venom. Carroll also argues for an eternal "universe". Which would immediately negate <true creationism>, as you cannot truly create something that was always in existence. Is he logical here? This is a rhetorical question, as I will explain below...

I never referred to Carrol's response regarding "virtual particles". I referred to Carrol's response to the fine-tuning argument you keep using. I'm not just appealing to authority Venom. I agree with arguments if they make sense. And his (5) points, for which I hand delivered to you, just so happen to present as good points to me and I would like to know why you think they are not good points? Can you at least list the (5) points so that I can know you at least watched what I actually sent you; for which you asked me for in the first place?

***(Food for thought... I'm sighting folks who lay out public arguments for which I agree with. For example, Michael Shermer lays out a very good argument about why most people believe in god. But this, by no stretch, means I agree with everything he says, as I think he is a poor debater, but this does not mean that all of his arguments must then either be good/bad.)***

In the Craig vs Carroll debate, during the Q&A segment, an audience member asked a question about the CI, and Carroll stated that, not only does he agree with Craig that the CI is not true, but he even stated that the CI is "nonsense and no thoughtful person still holds to it". Yet, here you are using it as a defeater of the causal principle (P1 of the KCA)....and Carroll, yo homeboy, is calling you an unthoughtful person for believing in it (or at the very least, using it in a debate). Carroll stated that no one still holds to it, which I already knew that to be the case...as I stated previously that this objection is old and played out and whoever still uses it just isn't up-to-date on their objections...or worse, just an unthoughtful person as Carroll stated.

See directly above in ****(brackets)***

Further, what I find quite ironic is what you stated above in red.

Now, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I'm clearly not the one smoking here.

Again, for the second time, the Bible is full of incidences of people still not believing, despite what they've seen. So there is no guarantee that more people will believe, should they see X or Y.

This is not my beef. I've also repeatedly told you that step 1 is belief that he even exists, and that step 2 is whether or not one would decide to follow him. Even 'Satan' possesses step 1.

My OP contends that your version of god answers prayer. So, does he, or doesn't he? We can immediately skip all this Venom... If God answers your prayer, as you state he does, not only would I 1) be a deist, but I would also 2) immediately become a Christan. It would be the quickest and easiest (2-for-1), and it would only take you seconds to do. You would no longer have to instead continue in your perpetual poor apologetics.

How is fine-tuning best explained, on naturalism?

Watch the NOVA documentary regarding the recap of the Dover trial. It's good stuff.

You can appeal to Carroll all you want. I just want your response, for the records, on here.

I've given you plenty of responses. I have not seen anything to refute it. Yet again, EVEN IF some "designer" exists, we are, (at most), analogous to the weeds growing in the cracks of a very large concrete slab, which-is-to-mean, we were not intended to be there at all, and yet, we defied the odds; but not in the way you would argue.

Weak sauce

We've all experienced the 'weak sauce' here Venom, in that you have no answer to the fact that science can no longer, in good faith, argue for a god while using "science", as god is never located in those expected gaps, and instead only produces results pointing to "naturalism" alone.

You asked why haven't you felt God's presence, and I answered. The answer ain't satisfying for you...so you should just chuck it up to "Because God doesn't exist". End of discussion. Right?

It's actually the end of the debate, as you assert that god answers prayer. And yet, you flat out refuse to comply to such an easy task that would convert me immediately, which is your ultimate goal.

1 chance in 10^10^123 stands, regardless of your assessment of anything that happened before or after the fall.

Again, the irony, as listed above in red. And here you are accusing ME of avoidance. Again, were women's vaginas extremely large and flappy before "the fall"? Was this god's 'good' design? And when we sinned, he tightened them up a ton to invoke pain and complication(s) in childbirth?

[SiNcE_1985]

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". 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.

Bruh, that's called a contradiction.

And I've repeatedly explained why consciousness cannot exist outside of it; which then means nothing mindful could have actually "created" the sighted terms listed in (brackets).

I agreed that nothing could have existed from an eternity past, within time.

So the fact that you continue to drive home a point that we both agree on, during a debate, is wild.

The analogy stands, as true 'creation', (meaning creating 'something' from 'not something'), cannot logically happen. If you instead wish to shift gears and argue for a "change agent", as the terms in (brackets) has always existed, then be my guest. We can then pivot and go from there...

I do not understand.

I'm afraid not Venom. Whether you like it or not, even you are not going to attest against the fact that "naturalism" exists.

Naturalism is a false belief.

It's YOUR burden to actually demonstrate anything beyond, like (super)naturalism. But so far, to use lingo you understand, apologetic-babble ain't gonna cut it.

1. Supernaturalism is true, if and only if naturalism is logically or empirically incapable of explaining X, Y, or Z.

2. Naturalism is incapable of explaining X, Y, or Z.

3. Therefore, supernaturalism is true.

It is really as simple as that.

And I predict you'll offer some weak sauce obejction to this, and then I'll simply ask you to explain the origins of the universe (along with fine-tuning), on naturalism...and then the debate will be over.

So, cmon, let's let it play out.

Oh, pardon me Venom, but I do not take your 'scientific' responses very seriously -- when you are also well known for flat out denying so much peer reviewed science, by assuming these scientific facts are both 1) conspiratorial as well as based upon 2) a mere popularity contest.

1. A peer-reviewed study of clergymembers state that Jesus is the Messiah.

2. Therefore, Jesus is the Messiah.

Wow, there may be something to this peer reviewed stuff after all

You cannot have your cake and eat it too Venom. Carroll also argues for an eternal "universe".

And in the debate, he also stated that his Carrol-Chen model, may not even be true (and Craig also explained why the Carroll-Chen model is false).

That came from his mouth, not mines.

Also, no proposed model accounts for the philosophical problems against infinite regress.

I never referred to Carrol's response regarding "virtual particles", or anything else.

Reading comprehension. I never said you did.

You used the played out "quantum mechanics-virtual particles-pops out of nothing" objection, and that is exactly what was mentioned in the debate...of which both Carroll and Craig denounced , and called nonsense.

So, you gotta hold the L on that one (on everything, but that one in particular).

I referred to Carrol's response to the fine-tuning argument you keep using. I'm not just appealing to authority Venom. I agree with arguments if they make sense. And his (5) points, for which I hand delivered to you, just so happen to present as good points to me and I would like to know why you think they are not good points? Can you at least list the (5) points so that I can know you at least watched what I actually sent you; for which you asked me for in the first place?

Ok, and Craig's response to Carroll's 5 points makes sense to me.

So there.

Again, I'm not debating Carroll.

You are my victim here.

***(Food for thought... I'm sighting folks who lay out public arguments for which I agree with. For example, Michael Shermer lays out a very good argument about why most people believe in god.

This is the genetic fallacy^, and I don't expect anything less coming from one of the most philosophically unsound human beings in the world; Michael Shermer.

But this, by no stretch, means I agree with everything he says, as I think he is a poor debater, but this does not mean that all of his arguments must then either be good/bad.)***

Calling him a poor debater is still an understatement.

See directly above in ****(brackets)***

When I reference "virtual particles", in that it goes against the assertion that "everything which begins to exist has an external cause", I'm referring to the following publication

In quantum field theory, particle-antiparticle pairs can momentarily pop into existence, briefly "borrowing" energy, before annihilating each other. From a classical perspective, these specific popping-into-existence events appear entirely uncaused and random.

Bruh, it's the same thing.

It's the CI.

You did not provide any new insight on what Carroll/Craig both agreed was nonsense.

So just drop it.

Except for the fact that my OP contends that your version of god answers prayer. So, does he, or doesn't he? We can immediately skip all this Venom... If God answers your prayer, as you state he does, not only would I 1) be a deist, but I would also 2) immediately become a Christan. It would be the quickest and easiest (2-for-1), and it would only take you seconds to do. You would no longer have to instead continue in your perpetual poor apologetics.

Bruh, you, of all people, are aware of the evidence.

Not sure what more I can say...so, since I've run out of things to say by ways of convincing, the only thing left to do is dispel, debunk, and denounce your flawed thinking, critiques, and terrible objections.

Watch the NOVA documentary regarding the recap of the Dover trial. It's good stuff.

The Bible is good stuff, too.

I've given you plenty of responses. I have not seen anything to refute it. Yet again, EVEN IF some "designer" exists, we are, (at most), analogous to the weeds growing in the cracks of a very large concrete slab, which-is-to-mean, we were not intended to be there at all, and yet, we defied the odds; but not in the way you would argue.

I'm still waiting on fine-tuning to be explained by way of naturalism.

All you've done is appeal to authority. Telling me to watch this and that, as if you can't articulate or back up your own beliefs and assertions, from your own brain.

We've all experienced the 'weak sauce' here Venom, in that you have no answer to the fact that science can no longer, in good faith, argue for a god while using "science", as god is never located in those expected gaps, and instead only produces results pointing to "naturalism" alone.

Nothing burger with weak sauce as the spread.

It's actually the end of the debate, as you assert that god answers prayer. And yet, you flat out refuse to comply to such an easy task that would convert me immediately, which is your ultimate goal.

You flat out reject Jesus. So hey.

And here you are accusing ME of avoidance. Again, were women's vaginas extremely large and flappy before the fall? Was this god's 'good' design? And when we sinned, he tightened them up a ton to invoke pain in childbirth?

Yup. So now what?

[POI]

Bruh, that's called a contradiction.

In order to make any actual progress, you need to tell me what you think I'm actually saying here?

I agreed that nothing could have existed from an eternity past, within time. So the fact that you continue to drive home a point that we both agree on, during a debate, is wild.

This is not my argument here Venom. I'm instead saying here that a 'mind' cannot exist outside of time. And my topic asks, 'where's god?' Well, he cannot logically exist outside time; which is where theists state he exists to then create 'STEM/materialism/naturalism/other'. And your only follow up question to ask is, well, "then what is it then?" So, we keep circling with the same BS, but the result will not change, as minds require time, and time requires 'STEM/other'.

I do not understand.

Anything outside 'STEM/other' would be logically ruled out as a 'creator', as a 'creator' requires time. So, if you wish to instead pivot completely and discuss things 're-arranged' within time, we can, but this no longer addresses asserted mindful creators actually 'truly creating' things.

Naturalism is a false belief.

Negative. See below...

1. Supernaturalism is true, if and only if naturalism is logically or empirically incapable of explaining X, Y, or Z.

2. Naturalism is incapable of explaining X, Y, or Z.

3. Therefore, supernaturalism is true.

It is really as simple as that.

And I predict you'll offer some weak sauce obejction to this, and then I'll simply ask you to explain the origins of the universe (along with fine-tuning), on naturalism...and then the debate will be over.

So, cmon, let's let it play out.

P1 is false. We both know naturalism actually exists. You are just asserting that something (super)natural is responsible for the resulting state of existence, via 'naturalism'. P2 is false because peer reviewed science explains 'naturalism.' And I've also given you examples, like how the bacterial flagellum derails the assertions of theists, as they wanted it to demonstrate IC, but it actually did the opposite.

1. A peer-reviewed study of clergymembers state that Jesus is the Messiah.

2. Therefore, Jesus is the Messiah.

Wow, there may be something to this peer reviewed stuff after all

(Again), P1 is false, as you think peer review consists of 1) a popularity contest and 2) conspiracy. Back to the drawing board, yet again.

And in the debate, he also stated that his Carrol-Chen model, may not even be true (and Craig also explained why the Carroll-Chen model is false). That came from his mouth, not mines. Also, no proposed model accounts for the philosophical problems against infinite regress.

...And the (5) points in question are....? Until you list them, I'm not sure you even watched the specific clip? Once I know you have, by simply listing the (5) points, then we can proceed. As I will then know you are up-to-speed. Thanx.

You used the played out "quantum mechanics-virtual particles-pops out of nothing" objection, and that is exactly what was mentioned in the debate...of which both Carroll and Craig denounced , and called nonsense. So, you gotta hold the L on that one (on everything, but that one in particular).

I'm not appealing to authority, as if Dr. Carroll is right about everything. I'm referring Dr. Carroll, regarding the (5) points, as it pertains to the teleological argument. And until you list them, you continue to waste time.

Ok, and Craig's response to Carroll's 5 points makes sense to me. So there. Again, I'm not debating Carroll. You are my victim here.

Yet again, please LIST the (5) points given, so that I know you watched the 8-minute clip.

This is the genetic fallacy^, and I don't expect anything less coming from one of the most philosophically unsound human beings in the world; Michael Shermer.

More mislabeled rubberstamping... I'm telling you that I'm appealing to good arguments. And in THIS case, Mr. Shermer made a good one regarding why folks believe. The same with Dr. Carroll, in that I'm not telling you that I fully agree with all his arguments. However, the 8-minute clip I sent you I do agree with, as it relates to theism and the claims of the teleological argument.

Bruh, it's the same thing. It's the CI. You did not provide any new insight on what Carroll/Craig both agreed was nonsense. So just drop it.

Yea, um... Delving into deep science will likely go nowhere when dealing with a science denier -- (aka) you. You will just handwave anything which threatens your view of Genesis/other. This is why I'm now going to focus on arguments which touch less upon deeper science and instead just apply basic common sense/other. The 8-minute clip lists (5) points and does not really dive deep into 'science', other than more surface level stuff...

Not sure what more I can say...so, since I've run out of things to say by ways of convincing, the only thing left to do is dispel, debunk, and denounce your flawed thinking, critiques, and terrible objections.

You can tell me WHY you refuse to pray for god to give you simple information, for which you will relay to me, and then immediately convert me? I mean, I already know the REAL reason, but let's hear the 'apologetic' reason(s).

The Bible is good stuff, too.

Bacterial flagellum (alone) will forever haunt your dreams, as this example, in which theists thought was a slam dunk to promote ID, via the observation of IC, completely backfired in their face. This is just one of the many reasons the teleological argument is now just a running joke among scholars. And yet, here you are ironically accusing ME of using tired and worn out arguments.

I'm still waiting on fine-tuning to be explained by way of naturalism. All you've done is appeal to authority. Telling me to watch this and that, as if you can't articulate or back up your own beliefs and assertions, from your own brain.

See above. Further, you missed my point here. At "BEST," your argument is for the priority of non-mindful objects and items. And yet, you argue that US humans are some kind or type of priority by this designer.

Nothing burger with weak sauce as the spread.

This is simply more handwaving in action Venom... The gaps for a possible "god" are now almost immeasurable. You are just regurgitating the remaining scraps.

You flat out reject Jesus. So hey.

Jesus is said to be the (prayer answering), invisible, magical sky car carcass.... Yet again, I gave you clear and easy instruction on what would immediately convert me. I'm sure you would like nothing more than to convert me right here and now. I'm still waiting.....

Yup. So now what?

Now what? Oh, you practice mental gymnastics and invoke belief preservation, that's what. This one example alone, demonstrates, at absolute best for you, that a completely inept 'designer' is at the helm here. And since minds do not exist outside naturalism, this would make sense, in that being completely inept would then "make sense".

[SiNcE_1985]

In order to make any actual progress, you need to tell me what you think I'm actually saying here?

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

This is not my argument here Venom. I'm instead saying here that a 'mind' cannot exist outside of time.

And my topic asks, 'where's god?' Well, he cannot logically exist outside time; which is where theists state he exists to then create 'STEM/materialism/naturalism/other'.

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.

And your only follow up question to ask is, well, "then what is it then?" So, we keep circling with the same BS, but the result will not change, as minds require time, and time requires 'STEM/other'.

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?

That's when you begin to offer weak responses..with your appealing to old, played out quantum physics interpretations amongst other nonsense.

Anything outside 'STEM/other' would be logically ruled out as a 'creator', as a 'creator' requires time. So, if you wish to instead pivot completely and discuss things 're-arranged' within time, we can, but this no longer addresses asserted mindful creators actually 'truly creating' things.

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

P1 is false. We both know naturalism actually exists.

And? The question is; whether nature has ALWAYS existed.

You already answered that question when you admitted the universe began to exist.

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

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?

You are just asserting that something (super)natural is responsible for the resulting state of existence, via 'naturalism'.

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.

You are misrepresenting my position, is what I'm trying to saying.

P2 is false because peer reviewed science explains 'naturalism.' And I've also given you examples, like how the bacterial flagellum derails the assertions of theists, as they wanted it to demonstrate IC, but it actually did the opposite.

Dover trial again?

(Again), P1 is false, as you think peer review consists of 1) a popularity contest and 2) conspiracy. Back to the drawing board, yet again.

Back to my question, yet again.

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

...And the (5) points in question are....? Until you list them, I'm not sure you even watched the specific clip? Once I know you have, by simply listing the (5) points, then we can proceed. As I will then know you are up-to-speed. Thanx.

Im not debating Carroll, I'm debating you.

I'm not appealing to authority, as if Dr. Carroll is right about everything.

I'm referring Dr. Carroll, regarding the (5) points, as it pertains to the teleological argument. And until you list them, you continue to waste time.

I'm not debating Carroll, I'm debating you.

Yet again, please LIST the (5) points given, so that I know you watched the 8-minute clip.

I'm not debating Carroll. I'm debating you.

More mislabeled rubberstamping... I'm telling you that I'm appealing to good arguments. And in THIS case, Mr. Shermer made a good one regarding why folks believe.

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

The same with Dr. Carroll, in that I'm not telling you that I fully agree with all his arguments. However, the 8-minute clip I sent you I do agree with, as it relates to theism and the claims of the teleological argument.

And I agree with Craig's rebuttals.

So, I guess it's a wash.

Yea, um... Delving into deep science will likely go nowhere when dealing with a science denier -- (aka) you. You will just handwave anything which threatens your view of Genesis/other. This is why I'm now going to focus on arguments which touch less upon deeper science and instead just apply basic common sense/other. The 8-minute clip lists (5) points and does not really dive deep into 'science', other than more surface level stuff...

I'm not debating Carroll. I'm debating you.

You can tell me WHY you refuse to pray for god to give you simple information, for which you will relay to me, and then immediately convert me? I mean, I already know the REAL reason, but let's hear the 'apologetic' reason(s).

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.

Bacterial flagellum (alone) will forever haunt your dreams, as this example, in which theists thought was a slam dunk to promote ID, via the observation of IC, completely backfired in their face. This is just one of the many reasons the teleological argument is now just a running joke among scholars. And yet, here you are ironically accusing ME of using tired and worn out arguments.

Weak sauce.

See above. Further, you missed my point here. At "BEST," your argument is for the priority of non-mindful objects and items. And yet, you argue that US humans are some kind or type of priority by this designer.

Weak sauce.

This is simply more handwaving in action Venom... The gaps for a possible "god" are now almost immeasurable. You are just regurgitating the remaining scraps.

Weak sauce.

Jesus is said to be the (prayer answering), invisible, magical sky car carcass.... Yet again, I gave you clear and easy instruction on what would immediately convert me. I'm sure you would like nothing more than to convert me right here and now. I'm still waiting.....

I'm giving you clear and easy instructions; accept and follow Jesus Christ.

That's how you will be converted.