GOD IS DEAD

It is nothing like that. The observations are not random, independent events. You can not apply such statistics to the balloon case.

You have the annoying habit of replying without using quotes from the message you're replying to. You observe facts. Personal credulity is what leads you to say "that has to have been designed[/i] without any rational explanation of why. Complexity does not necessarily imply design or intelligence. Nor does existence. You have to explain why your observations lead you to conclude that design and intelligence are required, or else you are making a bare assertion supported by nothing beyond your own personal credulity. This is logically fallacious reasoning. What miracles would those be? Be specific of jsut a few of teh best ones. I've never witnessed a miracle, unless by miracle you mean "an unlikely event." I would define miracles as direct violations of the laws of physics and the occurrance of the impossible. Some miracles are described in teh Bible, but as I said I've never witnessed any. I'm not even sure what you mean by "answers to a final cause." Are you referring to a designer as an uncaused first cause? It's certainly possible that a designer is the uncaused first cause of the Unvierse, there's simply no reason to believe so. It's also possible the Unvierse has no cause at all, or it is the result of a natural property of the greater multiverse (if such a thing exists), or any number of other possibilities. There's simply no reason to beleive any of them in the absence of any evidence, and asserting the existence of an additional entity with no evidenciary support is the very definition of "unparsimonious." Science makes no statement whatsoever with regards to religion or the absence thereof. It supports neither my atheism nor your theism. It simply explores the observable Universe through observation, expermient, and extrapolation. Occasionally it uncovers a fact that contradicts a religious belief (such as the Earth having "pillars," or the Sun being a chariot wheel being driven around the Earth, etc), but science really doesn't have anything to do with religion beyond that. Non sequitur. Information in the context of living organisms (and I presume you're talking about genetics) is entirely different from information in the context of the written word. You can't conflate the two. We only even use the same word because of the constraints of the English language. The information in genetics requires no intelligence whatsoever - it's nothing more than chemistry, and we understand it relatively well. As for your statement that the "systems in organisms and cells alone are enough to point to a designer," well, that's the very definition of an argument from incredulity. You are incredulous that living things as we observe them today could have emerged without intelligent guidance. You have not provided a reason that life as we see it today could not arise on its own, you simply assert that it must be a designer because you personally find the alternative to be ridiculous. That's not a rational arguemnt, that's an argument from incredulity fallacy.At the first test of a nuclear bomb, shortly before Hiroshima, a top-level American general who was to witness the test detonation was quoted as saying "I have witnessed every form of combustion known to man. This thing cannot and will not explode."His personal incredulity didn't have any effect on reality. He wasn't able to provide a reason that an atomic bomb could not work any more than you are able to provide a reason that life cannot exist without a designer. Until you do provide positive evidence that life cannot arise without a designer, you're making an empty assertion based solely upon your own personal incredulity, and thus your argument is invalid. Project much? I read perfectly well. I was not arguing that a Creator was impossible - that's a strawman that you've made up. It could also be called lying. Or bearing flase witness, however you'd like.I argued that Yahweh, Allah, and Kali all had similar supporting evidence - ie, popularity and ancient texts. In many cases the three are mutually exclusive, so they cannot all be true. In the absence of any evidence to support one over the other, they are all equally unlikely. There's simply no objective reason to beleive in any of them, any more than there is objective reason to believe in Thor, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, or Zig-Zog.If you believe there is objective evidence supporting one of them, please share it. Until then, I am simply unconvinced. What evidence? Be specific. I'm quite aware of what evidence is. However, the only evidence in support of the Christian God's existence that I've ever seen is the Bible. Many of the stories in the Bible (6-day Creationism, the Flood, the Exodus, etc) have been refuted by science. I can say that they didn't happen as recorded in teh Bible. This means the Bible is very poor evidence of God's existence, just as J.K. Rowling's books are relatively poor evidence of Harry Potter's existence. If Creationism or the Flood or the Exodus had been verified by science, the Bible would have been corroborated by outside evidence for its more extraordinary claims, and thus would have done a much better job of supporting the existence of teh Christian God.So what other evidence is there? Mere existence? We don't know if existence requires a deity. There's no reason to think it does beyond personal incredulity, just as there's no reason to insist that a deity is impossible except through personal incredulity. In the absence of evidence, "I don't know" is the best answer. In the absence of evidence, "probably not" is the best answer to an unparsimonious suggestion. Be specific. Instead of simply asserting "I have tons of evidence," provide that evidence. Until you do, your post is devoid of content. Many hypotheses are viable given only that information. The best answer to how the blood got there without knowing the pattern, quantity, source, or anythign else beyond "there's blood on the mattress" is "I don't know." If you were to say "someone was probably killed," you'd be asserting an additional entity (a murderer) without any reason to do so (the blood could be a drop from a bloody nose, for example). This is unparsimonious, and so I would ahve to say "in the absence of additional evidence, I don't think so." Where? What facts? Be specific. Why would you expect that? We've only discovered DNA 50 years ago. The human genome project was completed rather recently. Why would you expect that we would have found "proof" by now?Personal incredulity, perhaps? You've certainly confused me, but not in the way you think. I don't think I've ever seen someone project their logical fallacies onto others as frequently as you. I'm also confused as to how someone as irrational as you apparently are can operate a computer...but then, my personal incredulity has little to do with reality. I'm skeptical of any extraordinary claim, and the existence of a deity is certainly extraordinary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you certainly haven't provided any. My "test" is not so difficult to "pass" as you would think - or at least it shouldn't be difficult for a deity.Perhaps if you provide a few samples of the ample quantities of evidence you claim to have regarding the existence of a deity you could convince me. But simply saying "it's not impossible!" isn't enough reason for me to believe that it exists. It's possible that I'll win the lottery this week. It's also not likely. I haven't seen any irrefutable anything from you, Mike. Considering spirits are unlikely to exist, I doubt we're at anything spiritually. If you mean philisophically, in that I demand objective, parsimonious and rational arguemnts in support of extraordinary claims, and you simply require that the claims not be impossible, then yes, I would agree that we are at an impasse.

Were it so simple.We're assuming I see everything else; the ground, the view, other people - but just not this balloon. If only me not, then there is something very strange going on. And if something very strange going on then it can be affecting 100 people and not me - as easily as it can be affecting things the other way around.All that can be said with any certainty is that 100 people reporting common observation share something. There is no truth value in that - just commonality of observation.- A poor way to make a point on my part.The point I was trying to convey was the inappropriateness of extrapolating what is the case into what isn't. The hard facts are this: the probability of any single observation reflecting truth (assuming only true/false options) is 0.5. Multiplying by 100 doesn't alter things - at least not unless you decide to adopt some convention (majority rules) which has no way of demonstrating itself to be the case.Your position is understandable because it seems to work on so many fronts. But this..- ...is an assumption.It assumes no God and thus no God "sight". But what if "God observation" is a little like a car wreck. Many people observe the wreck but no two accounts are the same. Rather than dismiss there having been a car wreck at all, the sensible thing to do in the face of overwhelming majority observation is to consider the fact that the majority report there to be one.The issue of wildly differing accounts shouldn't deflect you from the underlying issue - the car wreck Or: most are spiritual.Did I say "what the majority report"? Oops! - You are arguing it reasonable to suppose yourself mistaken about "majority rule" on the issue of truth-giving. And on the issue of majority rule w.r.t. probability of approaching truth.

And yet, it is. Or, it is as long as you don't keep trying to add meaningless complexities to the example. But, it's not strange at all. It's not strange for 1 person out of 100 to be incorrect (by accident or not). Perhaps I made the example too personal by having "you" as the 1 person. Let's remove you entirely from the example. We'll call the 1 person who is incorrect something cute, like "Mr. Balls".Now, Mr. Balls is just a normal person, just like all the other 100.Mr. Balls claims to see a hot air balloon.
All 100 other people turn to look.
No one else sees the hot air balloon.We have 2 options:Mr. Balls in incorrect, and 100 other people are correct.
Mr. Balls is correct, and 100 other people are incorrect.
Keeping in mind that all these people are equally average, regular, normal folks.What would be "very strange"?1. Is it "very strange" that Mr. Balls made a mistake? He could have saw a bird, a hair out of the corner of his eye, maybe he's making it up, perhaps he's even having some sort of internal brain-malfunction.
2. Is it "very strange" that 100 people all made a mistake and Mr. Balls is somehow immune to whatever is causing 100 people to all make the same mistake? They all could be lying to Mr. Balls for a wonderfully inept conspiracy theory, perhaps they all have a simultaneous blind-spot in their visions exactly where the hot air balloon is... each person from a slightly different angle having a slightly different blind spot that just happens to be where this balloon is. Maybe all 100 of these people are having a similar internal brain malfunction, all at the exact same time, all only affecting just their vision.It is clearly option 2 that is "very strange". Your insistance to the contrary, and assertions that I must be leaving out certain vital information to this scenario are bordering on lunacy.Are you seriously unable to consider the possibility that Mr. Balls simply made a mistake?With all the known issues of how our human minds play tricks on us all the time, you can't understand how 1 person in 100 can possibly make a simple mistake? The hard fact is that you do not understand probabilities. Just because there are two options does not mean they have equal probability of being correct.If Mr. Balls claimed to see a floating dragon, inside a mini-cooper, and the wheels of the car were made of honey... no, there is not a 50% chance that Mr. Balls is correct, just because the claim is either true or false. So, you are assuming there exists an extra-sensory ability that not all humans have. With no way to describe the mechanism of this extra-sensory ability. When there is nothing differentiating your God "sight" from anyone's made up delusion "sight". And somehow this God "sight" only seems to affect the people that agree with your personal view on God and the universe. That somehow this God "sight" only appears in a select few of the poputation, and those few all happen to live in the same area and have the same social atmosphere.Interesting.I accept that this is a possibility. Right up there with all the other unverifiable "possibilities". Like Mr. Balls' floating dragon in the mini-cooper that drives on honey. No. I am simply saying that people are capable of making mistakes. And you seem to be arguing against such a basic, obvious fact.

Rahvin writes:Please give me a list of the other "number of other possibilites", that do not fall into the category of the only two Logical possibilites?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

The Universe could be well be uncaused or just incomprehensible to us but you theists are funny people. If you want to challenge his position why don't you ask him about complexity(at least complexity is a very comprehensible term for us, ask him how complexity arises out of disorder by itself - if he believes chaos exists and is not a determinist like myself). If he says there is probably an unknown yet pattern that governs how life comes into existence and this pattern is there without a cause, ask him how can the cause and effect principle be broken in the macro world(ask for another example). Not saying that you'll win the argument(you'll very likely fail) but at least you'll have something to hold on for a while and you'll make a better argument with us(you hardly ever do, that's why this bord is sooo overly atheistic, just saying the Bible says so, just don't cut it with such well armed opponents). Step out of the "Biblical God" premise and you might find your position not so overly rediculuous. Goddamn it, there are so many ways you could make a good argument about there being a cause(NOT God) behind the existence of the Universe, I am tempted to step across the line just to drag you out of the Bible bullshit and make a truly interesting read.PS. I don't believe in your god at all. Not even in the sense that it is anything remotely similar to a god.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I said "any number," as in an infinite number. In the absence of evidence, all possibilities are bare speculation. Every idea is equally valid and equally unsupported.Clearly I can't list an infinite number of possibilities. As Agobot pointed out, I did list several. It could be the Christian God. It could be a different deity. It could be multiple deities. It could be extra-Universal aliens working on their version of a school science project. It could be the result of two dimensional membranes colliding. It could simply exist without a cause. It could be the result of a black hole forming in an alternate dimension. It could be a warp in the quantum field of a greater Multiverse. It could all just be the Matrix. It could all just be a dream. We don't have any data and so we cannot differenciate any of the choices from any of the others. Clearly some choices are more parsimonious than others, but the only true answer is "we don't know enough to say."You claim that there are only two "logical" possinbilities, but the word "logic" does not mean "whatever makes sense to Bertot." You have no basis for restricting the origins of the Universe to two possibilities. If you claim that any of these possibilities are "illogical," explain how. Be specific in identifying the fallacy I've made.

If your information which support God's existence is unable to convince those who do not believe you, then your information is obviously non-verifiable.If your information was verifiable, it wouldn't matter if anyone believed you or not, because then you could verify it for them.Your non-verifiable information is not a very good indication of anything actually being a part of this reality.

Rahvin writes Absence of evidence and bear speculation hardly describes or catagorize the nature of evidence for the existence of God or the nature of the universe. Deciding whether it is an act of natural processes or a creative act is a choice based on (obvious) available evidence. One is certainly warrented in coming to the conclusion of a natural process "only", but he or she does so based on the available evidence at hand.Typically possible explanations are based on some evidence, the examples you offer generally do not fall in that category, since there is no way to demonstrate even the remotest possibilty of thier plausibility outside of the two possiblie explanations. The only two possible explanations provide us with the evidence we need to formulate this conclusions, the others do not. They are therefore only imaginations not even remote possibilites.In the same way, a person is justified as well, in the conclusion of an creative act by an eternal existent being, given the same obvious evidence. The "evidence" points to either or, initially. The same evidence that supports your contention of an eternal universe would support the existence of an eternal being, but this is where the process of evaluating evidence stops, in other words there are no other logical choices. At first observation this is what the evidence would allow. A closer inspection would indicate that the universe and its contents do not exhibit the characteristics of that which is classified as eternal in nature, a position and clear indication that Gods existence is a reality.Things are here, we are here, there are only two possibilites. The existence of things is evidence of only two reasonable (logical) conclusions Absence of evidence and speculation are therefore, nonsensical terms to be applied in this instance, quite the contray is the case. It is because of evidence we are able to come to a valid and reasonable conclusion/s, even if there are only two. Often times people will use words or terms, as you have in this instance that are so far from thier true application, it is obvious to see right off the bat.Therefore your above statement is nothing more than very carefully stated "double talk". It, in essence, very carefully and eloquently ignores agreat deal of evidence and the very specific fact that there are only two known and demonstratble possibilites of how things are here, or in existence. If there is an infinite number, as you imply, then you should be able to demonstrate atleast one that does not fall within the two categories. This you could not do even if you stayed on the website an eternity. The truth is that you can't list ANY OTHER possibilites and the above examples are simply delineations and or revisions of the only two possibilites, that it is eternal itself or a being that is eternal itself, created the known or universe or universes. I will be happy to entertain any other prospects you can offer when it is clear they are not revisions. When one ignores your very obvious attempt to ignore the obvious, it becomes much less difficult to "differenciate" between the choices and the probabilites become even greater for a designer or creator. "Any data"?Since there are only two possibilites it is not at all difficult to form a rational, reasonable and logical opinion about the origins of things. One is not unwarrented in coming to this very reasonable conclusion. It proceeds from a standpoint of logic (deductive reasoning,) therefore scientific in character, which excludes it from any form of theological or religious concepts, that are not implied until later. Initially however, it is a product of the same properties or deductions reached by a process that proceeds from a data gathering process, therefore scientific in nature This my friend, is not my CLAIM, it is plain common sense, and "my" basis for restricting it and them is due to the fact that it is axiomatic in character. Sorry, that is just the way "things" are, my philisophical friend, unless you can demonstrate otherwise and you should know this already.. I am so sure you cannot do this, I will be willing to stay here as long as you wish to demonstrate it otherwise. You do realize, that your objections to me ,"restricting the origins of the universe to two possibilites", is a weak attempt to avoid the force of its conclusion, correct? Your examples are not necessarily illogical, they are weak attempts that fall well within the only two possibilites. I expected better out of you my fine young philosopher.Agobot writes: For God to "damn" something he has to be real, you realize this , correct? Why didnt you say "eternal universe damn it", or "someother possibility damn it". You cant even speak without acknowledging his existence or invoking his name.I will give you fellas one thing, you never give up. Knock yourself out junior, step across any line you wish, this should be interesting, not to mention fun. Perhaps you could explain this completely idiotic statement.D. BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

False. There is insufficient data to draw a conclusion. We have no other Unvierse to compare ours to, and multiple competing theories regarding the origins of the Universe (both scientific and theological). Any and all explanations for the actual origin of the Universe are unfalsifiable because we simply don't know what is or is not possible, and we have insufficient data to differentiate one idea from the next. Because of this, all possibilities are equally speculative, None are supported by evidence. The Christian creation story is not supported by evidence (no, the Bible and personal subjective experiences are not sufficient evidence, unless you'd like to allow the Harry Potter books as evidence of magic). The Hindu creation story is not supported by evidence. The Flying Spaghetti Monster creation story is not supported by evidence. Further speculation includes Brane theory, other versions of string theory, the Universe may simply exist without a cause, may be an extra-Universal science experiment, etc.There is no objective evidence for your deity, Bertot. If you have some, post it in teh appropriate thread and convince us all. Until you do, you're just expelling hot air. I never contended an eternal Unvierse in teh way you would mean, with time stretching infinitely backwards.Falsification of an eternal Universe is not positive evidence of a deity. That's a non sequitur on your part, similar to the typical "disproving evolution proves Creation" bullshit. Your entire position is a gigantic black/white fallacy. You're trying to establish that the only two possibilities are "eternal Universe" and "goddidit" so that disproving one proves the other, but this is not a binary choice. The Universe does not need to be eternal or have a Creator. Your assertion that this is so is just that - a bare assertion. Again, "logical" does not mean "reasonable." The two are not synonymous. What evidence do you claim restricts us to only two possibilities? What is your basis for such an assertion? You've said it multiple times but have not yet supported it.Not to mention I've given you additional possibilities that are just as unfalisfiable as your nonsense. None of my alternatives involved an eternal universe, Bertot. Further, when you say "a Creator," you mean the Christian God. This is different from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Hindu pantheon, Kronus, the Norse creation myth, the multitudes of Native American creation stories, etc. You can't simply conflate all of them as "different versions of goddidit." In some of these creation stories, no deities are even involved. Others at the very least are compeltely and totally different from the Christian version. You can't wrap them all up together in some lunatic attempt to force only two possibilities.It bears a striking resemblance to the Creationist idiocy that is insisting different species are all the same "kind." You just love to oversimplify so that you can ignore rational thought, don't you. I'm going to say it again: in none of the possibilities I mentioned is the Universe eternal (in the way you mean, where time stretches backwards eternally). Not one. Zero. Nada. You didn't even comprehend the examples I provided to you. Just as an example, one possibility is that the universe as we observe it simply exists, uncaused. This doesn't mean time stretches back infinitely into the past - we know that the dimension of time is finite in the past; there is no point in time earlier than T=0 any more than there is a location farther North than the North Pole. This is an example of a possibility that does not fit in your two cookie-cutter choices, and demonstrates the fallacy of your black/white reasoning. First, science is not simply a matter of deductive reasoning. The conclusions reached by those deductions must be tested against reality. Any conclusions that are unfalsifiable are, again, simple speculation and are not scientific.Second, your entire argument revolves around your black/white fallacy. There are not only two choices. This is not a matter of flipping a coin. Even noting that many religious explanations are similar does not mean they are equivalent. And you completely failed to understand the more parsimonious possibilities and conflated them all under "eternal Universe" when not a single one of them involved such a thing. Again, "logical" != "common snese. Common sense is frequently wrong, and is almost always so when dealing with quantum physics and cosmology. I have demosntrated otherwise. Your black/white reasoning is fallacious. Smug much?I'm not avoiding any conclusion, Bertot. You've simply provided a logically fallacious argument. You haven't shown that only two choices are possible. You simply repeatedly assert that it is so, as if repeating yourself ad nauseum somehow lends additional strength to your argument. It does not. Meanwhile you continue to ignore and fail to comprehend the other examples I have put forth. Quite literally, you are a child covering his ears and closing his eyes while repeating the same falsified argument over and over again. I don't usually see quite eye-to-eye with Agobot, but since he's currently suspended and your commentary here is ridiculous tripe, I'll respond."Goddamn it" is a figure of speach. I frequently say it myself, along with "Christ" and "Jesus." I do so because it is firmly ingrained as a typical set of explitives in the English language. Saying "goddamnit" does not acknowledge the presence of a deity, it simply expresses frustration.Also, blasphemy tickles me, as it typically offends fundamentalist Christians. Says the person who believes an invisible magic man in the sky created the universe in 6 days 6000 years ago contrary to mountains of objective evidence, who sacrificed his son (who is also himself) to himself to atone to breaking rules he made in teh first place but somehow only required giving up a single weekend to pay for, and who really cares about which consenting adult I have sex with and will smite people for masturbating.A statement of disbelief is not stupic, Bertot. It's a indictment of you and all other Christians for having failed to convince Agobot to buy into your particular brand of mythology. It's an expression of a personal desire to remain consistent with evidence and not follow any little flight of fanciful belief no matter how popular if that belief is unsupported by convincing evidence.Your statement here, Bertot, as usual, simply shows what a weak argument you have. All you can do is ignore your opponents refutations, repeat yourself, and when all else fails you resort to "you're stupid."When you finish kindergarten, let us know.

Rahvin writes:Angry much?Nothing that Agobot stated could not be duplicated in yours. When commenting about his swearing, I thought even your simple mind would see it was meant to be light hearted. Calm down son, we are all hear to learn and have alittle fun.Even you would admit his comment made no sense. Do really consider that which you put forward especially in the context of such matters as refutations, give me a break. You have the nerve to ask me: As usual It will take some time to respond to your usual verbose blathering nonsense, Ha ha, but rest assured I will. I am not sure what "stupic" is but I will look it up.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

"Exist" is a word that doesn't make too much sense to me outside of the context of our perception of reality. Your Biblical God is the God of ignorance. The God of hopelessness, of despair and fear. But i'll let Einstein educate on that(you might start to see where my God lies:"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." (As quoted in Dukas, Helen and Banesh Hoffman. (1979). Albert Einstein - The Human Side. Princeton University Press.)
Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writesIn your excitment you are not listening or you are not paying attention, at bear minimum you are making no sense. Falsification of an eternal universe has to establish something else, it had to come from somewhere else. If we speculate that it is the Matrix, a dream or an alien, you only push the process further back. If it is any of these things my simple friend and the universe is not eternal in part or entirity, it would forcably demonstrate that there is only one other solution, the eternal existence of something or someone that brought the process into being. If you cant provide another VALID solution or LOGICAL possibility, just say as much.
Instead of continuously objecting to my proposition, and calling it a non-consequence, please provide another logical alternative to the consequence that matter is not eternal. The evidence of objectivity, commonsense, rationality, logic, axiomatic truth obesevation, experience, testing and any other term you could level to the proposition. I use the same methods that you are arriving at your CONCLUSIONS, or are yours different or better? If it is a non-consequence and you dont like it, please provide the other possibilty that would demonstrate the consequences, if matter is not eternal. I cant believe you cant fathom this simple point. Something has to be eternal somewhere and at some point (no pun intended, "at some point"), the process was started. If it is you contention that the universe, Aliens, the Matrix, a dream or some other process started all of this, it gets you no closer to avoiding the obvious conclusions. Its not simply a non-consequence, its the only other possibility. If it is not and you cant give an example of something else, then state logically or from a logical standpoint, why the proposition is invalid.Your examples are subsidiary to the proposition that existence and matter are either eternal or they are not. They therefore, are no examples to the proposition that there are only 2 logical possibities of the existence of things. In an effort to avoid the force of an argument,people will really work hard to avoid an obvious conclusion. It does not matter what the character of a specific diety is or is not, in connection with the rational behind the simple conclusion that there are only 2 logical possibiltes. No example of a diety or any example of how material possibly found its way here will remove this obvious fact.
Your continued attempts to complain about me forcing only two possibilites, is a further indication that you have no other alternatives in reality or a logical solution to the simple yet understandable proposition.
Let see if this one helps. What this is my friend is an obvious attempt (ludicrous I might add) to avoid an obvious conclusion of the only possibiltes. You do realize that finite (limited in character and scope, while I thank you for that admission, it is the first ime I have ever come across that) and uncaused would force you to the conclusion that it brought itself into existence, correct?. Or are you saying it is limted in time, scope and character, yet somehow was just always there or came from somewhere else? With the very odd argument you have just presented above, it is hard to know how to proceed, it makes no sense.Any science is first and foremost a process of deductive reasoning but when there are no other solutions about it, one must be honest about it as well.Not when there are absolutely, positively, without hesitation and or reservation no other possibilites. Unfalsifiable and axiomatic in character are exacally what describe the proposition here, not because they are speculation, there are no other possibilites. Its hardly a fallacy, if it cant even be touched. Im still waiting.Not to embarrass you further, because it is obvious you are struggling here, so I will quit asking you to provide(let you off the proverbial hook) that which you obviously cannot, I will make the following point to move the discussion further along. It is the contention of the thiest that this simple point that ohters and now myself are making, points to the fact that creation is an obvious possible conclusion derived from the science of logic and deductive reasoning, that avoids the possibility of religious influence initially. This puts the creative act in the class of scientific possibilities, given the fact that there are only "really" two logcal possibiltes, even in the examples you provided. Even if we remove all of the possibilites that are subsidiary to the main ones, the creative act stilll remains as logical and ligitimate, therefore presentable. It would be much more fun to see and example to my proposition than your sarcasm and abuse. If the best you can do is to and present an obvious contradiction in the character of admitting something is limited yet was always there or it is simply uncaused, Iwill take this as an admission of defeat. Who is really being childish. LOL. "Refutations"?. Do you even know what the words means? Give me a break.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Agobot writes:When you are ready to produce some evidence for this comment other than a bare assertion I will be happy to respond. Dear Albert can use any verbage or rational to avoid obvious truths in the same way Rahvin or anyone else can. But keep trying its fun to watch.In turn, let me let an inspired Apostle explain my God to you."The wisdom of men is foolishness to God and the foolisness of God is wiser than men"."But God commended his Love towrds us, in that while we were yet in opposition to him, he gave his Son to die on our behalf".D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Anytime you like but it will hurt. How about:- A snake that's supposedly fooling a young man into eating an apple that will later cause all known evils to humanity, and a God that works hard for 6 days and then rests?? VS the theory of General Relativity?If i had posted as much "HAHA" as i voiced upon writing this, i would probably get another suspension. But just so you can get a picture of how it went, it was like this: HAHAHAHA(almost goes into infinity)...grasping hard for air... HAHAHAHA...(infinity) Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.