As requested: Racr's thread.

[The King]

This thread needs more kowbell, the same old racrhatter/maddguy duet turned flat months ago.

[Denny]

This thread needs more kowbell, the same old racrhatter/maddguy duet turned flat months ago.

Ah, but I love the hell out of them. I'm not giving up on them.

[Maddhattter]

What do you need to know?

Evidence that demonstrates the existence of a god/gods.

Without it, even if I believed in a god/gods, there is no way to determine that belief/experience from fantasy/hallucination.

[Denny]

Evidence that demonstrates the existence of a god/gods.

Without it, even if I believed in a god/gods, there is no way to determine that belief/experience from fantasy/hallucination.

And do you think, based on the design of everything, from our universe, down to our free thinking (and everything in between), was nothing more than chance and chemical reations over billions upon billions of years? Even whatever people think blew up (or in) on some big bang had to have something to start it off, right?

Or does logic lead you more towards a Creator of such things? Keep in mind everything that is needed to support basic life, let alone a creature like us with a brain like we have.

Do you think if one thing was out of whack, life would exist? Something started with creation.

[Maddhattter]

And do you think, based on the design of everything, from our universe, down to our free thinking (and everything in between), was nothing more than chance and chemical reations over billions upon billions of years?

As that is a rough summary of the conclusion that all the evidence supports, yes. However, like all things, my belief in that is tentative based on the available evidence. Should new evidence arise, I'll adjust my position accordingly.

Even whatever people think blew up (or in) on some big bang had to have something to start it off, right?

Not necessarily.

Or does logic lead you more towards a Creator of such things? Keep in mind everything that is needed to support basic life, let alone a creature like us with a brain like we have.

It does not. If you are asserting it should, please provide the logical proof so that we may discuss it.

Do you think if one thing was out of whack, life would exist?

Yes. Life exists in all manner of environments demonstrating that a diversity of environmental factors does not preclude the existence of life.

Something started with creation.

This is an unsupported assertion, unless you mean something like a TV or a car. If you mean something like that, then you are correct. There is not, however, any indication that everything had to start with a creation.

[racrguy]

[Denny]

As that is a rough summary of the conclusion that all the evidence supports, yes. However, like all things, my belief in that is tentative based on the available evidence. Should new evidence arise, I'll adjust my position accordingly.



Not necessarily.



It does not. If you are asserting it should, please provide the logical proof so that we may discuss it.



Yes. Life exists in all manner of environments demonstrating that a diversity of environmental factors does not preclude the existence of life.



This is an unsupported assertion, unless you mean something like a TV or a car. If you mean something like that, then you are correct. There is not, however, any indication that everything had to start with a creation.

That's a hell of a lot of assumptions on your part to come to that conclusion. Look again at the pic above this post and end it with "doesn't mean God doesn't exist."... Oh wait, only works one way for these threads, huh?

[Maddhattter]

That's a hell of a lot of assumptions on your part to come to that conclusion.

Point out the assumptions being made. If there are so many, it should be no problem for you. As should providing the logical proofs do back up your positive claim.

Look again at the pic above this post and end it with "doesn't mean God doesn't exist."... Oh wait, only works one way for these threads, huh?

Again, you seem to be trying to insert this idea that I'm arguing against the existence of a god/gods. I'm not.

The only think I've stated is that logic does not support your position, requested the logical proofs to demonstrate that I am incorrect (should there be any), and stated that, based on actual evidence, the assumptions you are making are not necessary and that I'm not making them without evidence so support them.

As a final point, the "support" you've provided for your theistic position have, thus far, been nothing more than arguments from ignorance.

[Denny]

In talking about your assumption that not everything had a creation moment. It is completely illogical. What would make anyone think that anything in this universe did not have a point of creation?

I do have to give you credit that you don't through out something stupid like, "It was a process that occurred 100,000,000,000,000 (approx) years ago. First thing that comes to mind with me is that those "scholars" mask their ignorant claims with a ridiculous calculation of events coming up with an uncountable number, then saying, "See, it's all right there for me to know and you to scratch your head and accept."

[Maddhattter]

In talking about your assumption that not everything had a creation moment. It is completely illogical. What would make anyone think that anything in this universe did not have a point of creation?

It's not an assumption, it's the default position. Until you can demonstrate that everything requires a creation, there is no logical reason to believe it. Of course, you've been explained how the null hypothesis works and is applied in reason and logic before.

Again, if my logic is flawed, please provide the logical proofs to demonstrate that and we can discuss it. Until then, you are doing nothing more than making more arguments from ignorance.

I do have to give you credit that you don't through out something stupid like, "It was a process that occurred 100,000,000,000,000 (approx) years ago.

As the age of the universe is estimated at being ~14.5 billion years old, you would be correct to dismiss any claim that something happened 100 billion years ago without evidence to support that claim.

First thing that comes to mind with me is that those "scholars" mask their ignorant claims with a ridiculous calculation of events coming up with an uncountable number, then saying, "See, it's all right there for me to know and you to scratch your head and accept."

When a scientist, engineer, or mathematician present their calculations to you, they are explicitly not stating "See, it's all right there for me to know and you to scratch your head and accept." They are stating "This is my conclusion and this is the calculations that support that conclusion." This is how the process works. If others can reliably use their work to get reliably predictable and repeatable results, their hypothesis becomes a theory until someone can provide a hypothesis that better explains the evidence and can demonstrate their hypothesis can provide more or better reliabe predictable and repeatable results.

If you or I cannot comprehend what is being presented to us, that is not the fault of the evidence or the process. It's only ignorance on our part.

[Denny]

You silly man. Show me how you come to the estimation of the age of the universe. Until then, your whole post is out of ignorance. Explaining the process of coming to a conclusion doesn't necessarily make any conclusion made in the same post right.

[Maddhattter]

You silly man. Show me how you come to the estimation of the age of the universe.

"Astronomers estimate the age of the universe in two ways: 1) by looking for the oldest stars; and 2) by measuring the rate of expansion of the universe and extrapolating back to the Big Bang; just as crime detectives can trace the origin of a bullet from the holes in a wall."

I'll even concede, I remembered the ~14.5 billion years incorrectly. It's ~12-14 billion years.

Until then, your whole post is out of ignorance.

That's not how ignorance works. Until I support my claim, I'm giving an unsupported assertion, which is not akin to ignorance.

Explaining the process of coming to a conclusion doesn't necessarily make any conclusion made in the same post right.

It does when the evidence or proofs are sound. At least, it makes it reasonable to accept as right until better evidence or proofs are brought that show it to be incorrect.

[talisman]

I hope god smites the lot of you.

[Denny]

You're still under an assumption of this Big Bang that no one was around to witness AND that these findings by scientists say that everything is moving apart as a result of this bang (the universe expanding) is legit. Have you utilized their calculations to come to your own findings, or just taking what they say as fact? You know, faith in their findings. There's that F word again.

[Denny]

I hope god smites the lot of you.

I'm going to smite the bathroom again!