If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[IBDaMann]

Neither you, me or anyone else knows how the universe came into existence, how far it extends, if it ever ends and what's beyond that point if there is one.

I admit that science has yet to explain those things.

These aren't things for science to explain. Learn what science is. Do you think it's for science to explain how far it is from LAX to La Guardia? Your comments are stupid.

You admit that science has yet to explain those things... And then you explain what science can't buy invoking a deity.

Now, ask Cypress why his deity came into existence, and when that happened. Did his deity come into existence from nothing? You seem to be terrified of Cypress such that you won't ask him any of the tough questions. Why don't you ask him for the unambiguous definition of the global climate that doesn't violate math, science, logic or observation? Oh, that's right, you know that there isn't any such thing so Cypress won't have it either.

How did the goddess Climate just spring out of nothing?

There's no reason to believe the equation you posted is doing anything but explaining the chaos after the fact.

Good. Good. Keep going. Ask Cypress for the orderly distribution pattern of universal matter and energy.

 

[IBDaMann]

You should keep your mouth shut on topics you know nothing about.

You should keep your mouth shut on topics you know nothing about. Remember, you don't even know what science is. You never did offer an excuse.

Plato didn't create any science. If only you had opted to pay attention in school, you would know this.

Plato wrote the dialogue Timaeus

Too funny. @Cypress believes that a dialog is science. You probably think that a screenplay is settled science as well. You really should keep your mouth shut on topics you know nothing about.

Thomas Jefferson was wrong about a lot of things, but we still read him.

Say it ... tell us how you believe that Thomas Jefferson created science.

We didn't magically wake up in the 21st century with a complete knowledge of modern science.

QUESTION: How do you know when @Cypress is struggling to save face?
ANSWER: He makes a full court press on using the Marxist "we" and then pivots to it on a dime.

FACT CHECK: It wasn't until the 21st century that the complete knowledge domain of modern science was attained.

People still read Aristotle because the history of science and the history of philosophy are the palette on which the human condition is painted.

1. People. At least you stopped using the Marxist "we".
2. There is no Aristotelean science either.
3. No history of anything equates to science or to philosophy. History is nothing more than a narrative.
4. What is the current human condition, and on what science/philosophy is it painted?

 

[ZenMode]

Yes, it is not only relevant, it is a requirement. You cannot use the word "literally" without it being written in the Bible. We need to ensure English language acumen is on the list of your lacking proficiencies.

It's not. Literally is a description of how it is accepted by Christians, not a description of how it appears in the Bible.

This is just your opinion. Notice that you did not use the word "incorrect", which is all that matters.

Nope. The claims made at both. You just claim more irrational and implausible events to explain the first ones.

There is no "hence" yet. You have to lay out a valid argument first before you can "hence" a conclusion.

I have.

... and you are on tap to either show that He cannot, or you must agree with Christians that He can.

I don't even believe he exists because of a lack of evidence.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

You've never seen ice??

very good encyclopedia brown.

now go eat a dick.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Should we call Newton a loser because Einstein advanced beyond him? No.

haha John mccain got caught.

 

[IBDaMann]

Literally is a description of how it is accepted by Christians,

How what is accepted?

Nope. The claims made at both. You just claim more irrational and implausible events to explain the first ones.

This is your opinion. Notice that you did not use the word "incorrect" which is all that matters.

I have.

... only in your dreams.

I don't even believe he exists because of a lack of evidence.

All you have to do then is to show that God does not exist and you will have shown that He cannot do it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

So much verbiage just to show everyone you don't understand the concept.

Save yourself some time just post that you don't understand the position. And it will save time.

I understand the concept very well. I wish you did.

The concept is this: Atheists want to pretend they are not doing the same kind of "believing" as theists...so they have warped the meaning of "atheist" to mean, "Anyone who does not believe in any gods."

Of course this means that babies, toddlers, incompetent people are all atheists. It also means that agnostics are supposedly required to consider themselves atheists.

It is a trick atheists are playing on themselves.

 

[IBDaMann]

Should we call Newton a loser because Einstein advanced beyond him? No.

Einstein immortalized Newton's law of gravity by incorporating it into Relativity.

 

[IBDaMann]

I understand the concept very well.

Perhaps, but you lie completely.

The concept is this: Atheists want to pretend they are not doing the same kind of "believing" as theists..

... because we're not.

.so they have warped the meaning of "atheist" to mean, "Anyone who does not believe in any gods."

Nope. We have not.

Of course this means that babies, toddlers, incompetent people are all atheists.

Yes. Anyone who has no theism is an atheist.

It also means that agnostics are supposedly required to consider themselves atheists.

Nope. You've had plenty of time to learn what an agnostic is, but you apparently find learning to be too much work.

 

[Cypress]

Too funny. @Cypress believes that a dialog is science!

Galileo famously wrote up and published his theory of the heliocentric solar system as a dialogue.

tell us how you believe that Thomas Jefferson created science.

I didn't say he created science, dummy.
But Jefferson wrote extensively about the natural history, meteorology, flora, and paleontology of Virginia.

 

[Cypress]

What is the normal reason for a random dust cloud?

You're getting confused between the origin solar system and the origin of the universe.

If he lacks theism, he is an atheist. Agnosticism does not enter this discussion. I don't think anyone really expects you to understand the meaning of words that have more than two syllables.

I've read or investigated the seminal works of the preeminent atheist authors and influencers of the 19th and 20th centuries. They all made a truth claim - there are no gods.

The definition obscure message board atheists want to use means my dog is an atheist.

If you haven't seen sufficient evidence for god, it insinuates you are waiting for more evidence. Explain to the board exactly what kind of evidence you are waiting for.

Of course not. The universe is not coherently organized! It's a random dust cloud.

The universe as a whole is organized into a structure of galactic filaments and voids, because of the universal properties of gravity and dark energy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Galileo famously wrote up and published his theory of the heliocentric solar system as a dialogue.

Keep going. You stopped just short of revealing your logical ineptitude. What is your conclusion?

I didn't say he created science, dummy.

You say everything that you imply.

But Jefferson wrote extensively about the natural history, meteorology, flora, and paleontology of Virginia.

Sat it ... that you believe that literature constitutes science.

 

[Cypress]

Keep going. You stopped just short of revealing your logical ineptitude!

I accept your tacit confession you were ignorant of the fact Galileo published his most famous scientific theory in the literary form of dialogue. (You may commence frantic Googling now.)

 

[IBDaMann]

You're getting confused between the origin solar system and the origin of the universe.

Nope. That would be you, just now.

I've read or investigated the seminal works of the preeminent atheist authors and influencers of the 19th and 20th centuries. They all made a truth claim - there are no gods.

Obviously they weren't atheists. The statement "there are no gods" is a theistic declaration, which precludes atheism.

The definition obscure message board atheists want to use means my dog is an atheist.

Question: does your dog have any theism? Yes or no?

If your dog has no theism then it is atheistic. Again, the word has more than two syllables so I don't expect you to get it on the first go. Baby steps.

Another question: Does your dog have synchronicity? If not, it is asynchronous as well.

Another question: Is your dog political ... or is it apolitical?

I know, I know ... too many syllables.

If you haven't seen sufficient evidence for god, it insinuates you are waiting for more evidence

Sure. Do you have any evidence that might change my mind?

. Explain to the board exactly what kind of evidence you are waiting for.

The convincing kind.

The universe as a whole is organized i

There is no organization in the totally random.

because of the universal properties of gravity and dark energy.

There's no dark energy outside your religion of fad science fiction.

 

[Cypress]

Question: does your dog have any theism? Yes or no?

Agnostic. It doesn't know either way and makes no truth claims.

The convincing kind.

So even though you claim you need more evidence, you don't have the slightest idea and are afraid to say what kind of evidence you need, lol

There is no organization in the totally random.

Filaments are organization, as are planetary star systems, as is the chemistry represented by the periodic table.
Are you aware the word 'periodic' indicates a repeating pattern, i.e. organization and structure?

 

[IBDaMann]

I accept your tacit confession

That really is all you have. Your king is tipped.

 

[IBDaMann]

Agnostic. It doesn't know either way and makes no truth claims.

Standard @Cypress cowardice. Answer the question: Does your dog have any theism?

So even though you claim you need more evidence,

I said that I need more convincing. You are the one stuck on the word "evidence".

you don't have the slightest idea and are afraid to say what kind of evidence you need, lol

I answered your question. You obviously couldn't read my answer.

Filaments are organization,

There is no organization in the totally random.

Are you aware the word 'periodic' indicates a repeating pattern,

Yes

i.e. organization and structure?

Nope. You don't have the math background needed to understand the concepts you are pretending to discuss.

 

[Cypress]

Standard @Cypress cowardice. Answer the question: Does your dog have any theism?


I said that I need more convincing. You are the one stuck on the word "evidence".


I answered your question. You obviously couldn't read my answer.


There is no organization in the totally random.


Yes


Nope. You don't have the math background needed to understand the concepts you are pretending to discuss.

^^ Bad faith poster who refuses to admit there is organization all around us: in the periodic table of chemical elements, in the formation and motion of planetary star systems, in the intricate structure of galactic filaments.

 

[Cypress]

Right, not a thumper but a believer.

It's more probable than not that a mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe was caused by some kind of rational agency or force.

Einstein famously said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it's comprehensible.

It's logically incoherent and unintelligible to believe a mathematically rational and lawfully organized universe was caused by chance and inanimate, irrational material physical causes.

I could be wrong about it.

 

[ZenMode]

So you can't prove those things aren't true?