Making more meaningless arguments eh? ''So, all we see is the oneness of the universe.'' What is this even supposed to mean?
You can't show in your argument that the universe has to be created by 1 single entity or god, period, you lost.
Poor, little fella. Too mentally weak to understand the scientific proof for God.  Still no argument, though. You got destroyed several times, you have to resort to using retarded language to try and make a point. Simply your argument does not show why the universe had to be created by 1 single entity and not a few and also why it has to be a god. If we don't know what's outside the universe then how can you say the universe was created by god ( and by god you mean Yahweh because you don't believe in Zeus) and not many gods or an alien race or simply, the big bang? Simply because one is all we can see from within the universe. Prove it was more than one by going out there and coming back with the proof.  Prove it's one by going there and coming back with the proof you fool. ''one is all we can see from within the universe.'' I see multiple planets and particles and everything is multiple, what do you mean one is all we can see lmao, you are going insane. |
|
|
|
Making more meaningless arguments eh? ''So, all we see is the oneness of the universe.'' What is this even supposed to mean?
You can't show in your argument that the universe has to be created by 1 single entity or god, period, you lost.
Poor, little fella. Too mentally weak to understand the scientific proof for God. Still no argument, though. You got destroyed several times, you have to resort to using retarded language to try and make a point. Simply your argument does not show why the universe had to be created by 1 single entity and not a few and also why it has to be a god. If we don't know what's outside the universe then how can you say the universe was created by god ( and by god you mean Yahweh because you don't believe in Zeus) and not many gods or an alien race or simply, the big bang? |
|
|
|
You are so mean. You are really making this difficult so that I have to work at it (LOL), right? Let's use your link http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ from above, for example. Skip down a page, to the "Fish - tetrapods" section. Notice the wording "thought to be" and "If that animal was" and "is probably representative" and others. In other words, they don't know that evolution is a fact, because everything said about evolution everywhere contains wording like this. Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist(ed). There is no proof for evolution there. It's simply proof that there are different fish that have similar characteristics. Further, if you found a Ventastega, for example, what would the direct and immediate ancestor to the Ventastega look like? Especially in a fossil? It would look exactly like a Ventastega. However, if there were some visible differences between the Ventastega in question, and it's direct ancestor Ventastega, nobody can tell from any of the fossils if the difference was a simple difference programmed by DNA, or if it was truly evolution. Fossils are not detailed enough for that, and fossils are the best we have. The point is that all these evolution, fossil web pages are built on guesses. We have no proof for even one evolution happening. Continuing to promote evolution as fact is to be deceptive and a liar. We have no fact in evolution. Evolution is a hoax. Damn bro, amazing argument, you got me there, if an article has words like ''thought to be'' or any ''ifs'' it means it's a total hoax. - Son of a gun! I didn't even mean to get you. But since I did, thanks for making it easier on all of us - but mostly yourself - for finally understanding that evolution is a hoax.''Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist'' They are dated, some are older than others, all in perfect order which shows evolution happened, unless you believe it's a coincidence that they are ordered like that or that god made it that way to make it look like evolution.
You should really go out into the 7.5 billion people world, and find two people who are evolution-related. Pardon the offense to the people who lived in those skulls you show, way back, but those skulls don't show any proof of evolution by their existence. The dating is way unsure, and the fact that they are as many years apart as evolutionists claim that they are, shows that there is no way to prove evolution at all by them.Evolution is a hoax. So you think somehow a lot of human-like skulls existed in the past but all of them are extinct now or what do you think all those skulls are? Take a minute and think. |
|
|
|
You are the retard who is using semantics to prove god's existence. As I previously said, your argument DOES NOT rule out the possibility of different gods or creators creating the universe, you keep claiming it's 1 god only but how do you know this?
Poor little fella. Having trouble, aren't you. Can't even remember what we are talking about, right? Okay. I'll say it again, just for you, because I feel sorry for you: As I said, because of the complexity of the physics of the universe, even if there were multiple entities who together created the universe, they still would need to work as One, or the universe wouldn't work. The entities would not be the God of the universe. They might be gods or lords in the sense of having some strength or control, but they would not and could not be the God of the universe, simply because of the complexity we see in all things. God is One. ''As I said, because of the complexity of the physics of the universe, even if there were multiple entities who together created the universe, they still would need to work as One'' Working as one =/= being 1 entity. Constructors work as one, inventors can work as one, they are still different people, these bullshit semantics you are trying to use are worthless. I know you are having trouble. Let me show you from a different angle. Look around the universe. What do we see? One universe. All the parts and physics work together as one. Do we see God? That is, do we see Him directly? Maybe, but not that we recognize. So, all we see is the oneness of the universe which shows that He exists. Can we look outside the universe? Of course not. Why not? Because, if we thought we were looking outside the universe, what we saw would really be part of the universe. Something outside would not be recognizeable, because it would not be made up of anything that we were familiar with. So, all we see is the oneness of the universe. What if God, in some super abstract way - an abstract of abstract - was neither one nor many nor an entity nor a super entity, but something else that possessed all these qualities, and yet none of them? The thing we see is one universe. As far as we are concerned, God is one. And we can understand this from our standpoint of corporation, and of nothingness. All nothingness is one, even though it contains waves that are electromagnetic subatomic particles. Nothing is all connected. Yet, it is within the universe. And... Our understanding of corporate oneness, though it is made up of many parts, is still one regarding the corporation. Your lack of understanding of this is simply your desire for something else than what we see exists. If God is other than One, we have no understanding of Him in any other way than One. Why don't we understand? He is outside the universe where we don't understand. For us He is One, no matter what He is out there. Making more meaningless arguments eh? ''So, all we see is the oneness of the universe.'' What is this even supposed to mean? You can't show in your argument that the universe has to be created by 1 single entity or god, period, you lost. |
|
|
|
Show as many examples as you want. But what are you showing examples of? Certainly it isn't missing links that are the immediate evolution ancestor or descendant of any particular critter. In fact, they are not even close according to evolution theory. Why not? Because all the examples you show have too many differences for mutation to have occurred to make them immediately related. Evolution theory doesn't allow for that many mutations from one critter to the next to make it an immediate ancestor or descendant. The point is, since we don't even have one critter that is even closely related by evidence, how do we know that they are related at all? Evolution is all guesswork. Your links are guesswork. They are religion if you believe them. Evolution is a hoax. ''Certainly it isn't missing links'' Obviously not since there is no such thing as a missing link. https://www.livescience.com/32530-what-is-the-missing-link.htmlhttps://i.stack.imgur.com/zecLF.jpgThat's 14 Hominid species, ranging from about 4 M.Y. ago to a modern human skull ("N"). https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/5138/fossils-of-intermediate-stagesAnd as you can see, evolution is in fact real. You are so mean. You are really making this difficult so that I have to work at it (LOL), right? Let's use your link http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ from above, for example. Skip down a page, to the "Fish - tetrapods" section. Notice the wording "thought to be" and "If that animal was" and "is probably representative" and others. In other words, they don't know that evolution is a fact, because everything said about evolution everywhere contains wording like this. Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist(ed). There is no proof for evolution there. It's simply proof that there are different fish that have similar characteristics. Further, if you found a Ventastega, for example, what would the direct and immediate ancestor to the Ventastega look like? Especially in a fossil? It would look exactly like a Ventastega. However, if there were some visible differences between the Ventastega in question, and it's direct ancestor Ventastega, nobody can tell from any of the fossils if the difference was a simple difference programmed by DNA, or if it was truly evolution. Fossils are not detailed enough for that, and fossils are the best we have. The point is that all these evolution, fossil web pages are built on guesses. We have no proof for even one evolution happening. Continuing to promote evolution as fact is to be deceptive and a liar. We have no fact in evolution. Evolution is a hoax. Damn bro, amazing argument, you got me there, if an article has words like ''thought to be'' or any ''ifs'' it means it's a total hoax. ''Further, in that same section, there is nothing to show that these were not all individual creatures that were created the way they exist'' They are dated, some are older than others, all in perfect order which shows evolution happened, unless you believe it's a coincidence that they are ordered like that or that god made it that way to make it look like evolution. |
|
|
|
You think there is such thing as a missing link, I proved you wrong, all the ''evidence'' you have against evolution usually consists of fallacies or plain wrong arguments as shown above.
As usual. Now you try to twist things to make it look like I am the one who thinks that there is a missing link. There isn't any evolution missing link. In zillions of fossils, we haven't been able to find one that we can prove. Lots of talk. Lots of ideas. But no proof. So, missing-link ideas, along with the rest of the evolution ideas, are simply science fiction. Or, show us the proof for even one evolution form. Your talk isn't proof. Point us at the proof that is accepted as proof by science, not just places where scientists and quasi-scientists say they have proof without showing it. Or explain it in enough detail that we can see that it is proof. Can't do it, right? Evolution is a hoax. And thanks for keeping this thread alive by your lack of proof, while you are willing to talk with no proof behind what you say. More and more people are starting to wake up about the evolution hoax, just because of you. Good job! You keep asking for examples after I provided them: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#7ef7d9832d8dhttps://study.com/academy/lesson/transitional-fossils-definition-examples.htmlhttp://www.transitionalfossils.com/https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03Show as many examples as you want. But what are you showing examples of? Certainly it isn't missing links that are the immediate evolution ancestor or descendant of any particular critter. In fact, they are not even close according to evolution theory. Why not? Because all the examples you show have too many differences for mutation to have occurred to make them immediately related. Evolution theory doesn't allow for that many mutations from one critter to the next to make it an immediate ancestor or descendant. The point is, since we don't even have one critter that is even closely related by evidence, how do we know that they are related at all? Evolution is all guesswork. Your links are guesswork. They are religion if you believe them. Evolution is a hoax. ''Certainly it isn't missing links'' Obviously not since there is no such thing as a missing link. https://www.livescience.com/32530-what-is-the-missing-link.html That's 14 Hominid species, ranging from about 4 M.Y. ago to a modern human skull ("N"). https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/5138/fossils-of-intermediate-stagesAnd as you can see, evolution is in fact real. |
|
|
|
You are the retard who is using semantics to prove god's existence. As I previously said, your argument DOES NOT rule out the possibility of different gods or creators creating the universe, you keep claiming it's 1 god only but how do you know this?
Poor little fella. Having trouble, aren't you. Can't even remember what we are talking about, right? Okay. I'll say it again, just for you, because I feel sorry for you: As I said, because of the complexity of the physics of the universe, even if there were multiple entities who together created the universe, they still would need to work as One, or the universe wouldn't work. The entities would not be the God of the universe. They might be gods or lords in the sense of having some strength or control, but they would not and could not be the God of the universe, simply because of the complexity we see in all things. God is One. ''As I said, because of the complexity of the physics of the universe, even if there were multiple entities who together created the universe, they still would need to work as One'' Working as one =/= being 1 entity. Constructors work as one, inventors can work as one, they are still different people, these bullshit semantics you are trying to use are worthless. |
|
|
|
You sure went the long route to express that you recognize that God exists, scientifically proven! But, what is important is that you finally admitted your recognition of such. Nope, you said by definition, how many gods fit that definition? How many things are defined as creators of the universe, how do you know it's ''god'' and not ''zeno'' or any of the others? Another way to show how wrong you are is by making you understand that simply because a made up word has a made up definition, it doesn't mean it's true, that¡s in fact what you are trying to prove, you can't use the definition of what you are trying to prove, to prove it lmao. Now you want to play around with semantics, again. From a standpoint of science, you can call God by any name you want. As long as the being behind the name fits the God of the universe, God might even be happy with the name you call Him by. I wonder how long it will take science to find out the name that God calls Himself by. You are the retard who is using semantics to prove god's existence. As I previously said, your argument DOES NOT rule out the possibility of different gods or creators creating the universe, you keep claiming it's 1 god only but how do you know this? |
|
|
|
You think there is such thing as a missing link, I proved you wrong, all the ''evidence'' you have against evolution usually consists of fallacies or plain wrong arguments as shown above.
As usual. Now you try to twist things to make it look like I am the one who thinks that there is a missing link. There isn't any evolution missing link. In zillions of fossils, we haven't been able to find one that we can prove. Lots of talk. Lots of ideas. But no proof. So, missing-link ideas, along with the rest of the evolution ideas, are simply science fiction. Or, show us the proof for even one evolution form. Your talk isn't proof. Point us at the proof that is accepted as proof by science, not just places where scientists and quasi-scientists say they have proof without showing it. Or explain it in enough detail that we can see that it is proof. Can't do it, right? Evolution is a hoax. And thanks for keeping this thread alive by your lack of proof, while you are willing to talk with no proof behind what you say. More and more people are starting to wake up about the evolution hoax, just because of you. Good job! You keep asking for examples after I provided them: https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaenamontanari/2015/11/17/four-famous-transitional-fossils-that-support-evolution/#7ef7d9832d8dhttps://study.com/academy/lesson/transitional-fossils-definition-examples.htmlhttp://www.transitionalfossils.com/https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/lines_03 |
|
|
|
''that its Maker has to be God.'' ''has'' how do you know it has to be God? How do you know it's not a few gods or other causes?
By the definition of "God," of course. Many things are defined as creators of the universe, therefore Zeno from dragon ball is the creator of the universe!!!! You sure went the long route to express that you recognize that God exists, scientifically proven! But, what is important is that you finally admitted your recognition of such. Nope, you said by definition, how many gods fit that definition? How many things are defined as creators of the universe, how do you know it's ''god'' and not ''zeno'' or any of the others? Another way to show how wrong you are is by making you understand that simply because a made up word has a made up definition, it doesn't mean it's true, that¡s in fact what you are trying to prove, you can't use the definition of what you are trying to prove, to prove it lmao. |
|
|
|
Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from? Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil. Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation? The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure. I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction. So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that... Evolution is a hoax. I guess you have to accept evolution now. What I accept isn't important. According to the sites in your links, science doesn't accept evolution. Evolution is a hoax. I debunked the ''missing links myth'' and provided examples of transitional fossils yet you don't want to accept evolution because it goes against your religious beliefs. Actually, I and many others have debunked evolution. You simply don't accept it because it goes against your evolution religion. You think there is such thing as a missing link, I proved you wrong, all the ''evidence'' you have against evolution usually consists of fallacies or plain wrong arguments as shown above. |
|
|
|
Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from? Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil. Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation? The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure. I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction. So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that... Evolution is a hoax. I guess you have to accept evolution now. What I accept isn't important. According to the sites in your links, science doesn't accept evolution. Evolution is a hoax. I debunked the ''missing links myth'' and provided examples of transitional fossils yet you don't want to accept evolution because it goes against your religious beliefs. |
|
|
|
''that its Maker has to be God.'' ''has'' how do you know it has to be God? How do you know it's not a few gods or other causes?
By the definition of "God," of course. Many things are defined as creators of the universe, therefore Zeno from dragon ball is the creator of the universe!!!! |
|
|
|
''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.'' I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examplesThere you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter. If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to. You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee. Evolution is a hoax. ''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist? https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolutionAnyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly. Who, besides you, says anything about an evolution fossil line-up? Just show one fossil that is the direct mutation of another fossil, that's all. Who cares where it came from? Pick, as an example, some whale fossil that was the direct and immediate, previous ancestor to some other whale fossil. According to evolution theory, you couldn't tell the difference between the two animals from the fossils. Evolution theory says that the mutation would have to be too tiny to tell the difference by looking at the fossil. Even in Punctuated Evolution the difference would be too small to see in a fossil. Now, if you had two, living whales, you might check their DNA to see the difference... the beneficial mutation. So, why hasn't anyone come up with something that they can prove is a beneficial mutation in a living creature, and not a simple adaptation? The whole idea of using the fossil record for evolution studies is stupid, since there is no way to tell if a fossil is for-a-fact an evolutionary mutation of some other fossil, since their differences would be so small, and there is no way to check their DNA to make sure. I don't know who started the idea of checking the fossil record. But if it was an evolutionist who did it, he was ignorant or just plain stupid. If it was a creationist, he was shrewd. Why? The fossil record can't be used on its own to prove or disprove evolution. The whole idea of using the fossil record is a distraction. So, we are back to where we started. Prove it was evolution and not adaptation or something else. But remember in your proving... remember that it all acts by cause and effect, which means that even evolution - if it exists, somehow - is programmed in by whatever cause the universe in the Beginning. C&E alone show that... Evolution is a hoax. I guess you have to accept evolution now. |
|
|
|
''Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.'' No it doesn't as I said, it's a fallacy. ''fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.''
Learn to read. Let's see. Which point in and of the universe is the universe? Why, all of them combined, of course. Which point requires cause and effect? Why, all of them, of course. Equals, the whole universe requires cause and effect. Scientific probability holds that when something is probable beyond a certain point, its opposite is impossible. Let's wait until we find that first non-C&E effect before we rule out scientific probability. After all, even your decision to rule out scientific probability on this point is a caused decision.
Even assuming all your premises are true, ultimately your argument fails to provide any evidence pointing to what actually created the universe, your complexity argument is very simple. You said it yourself too, whatever created the universe has to be more complex than it. Even if I agree on the premise too, it still doesn't say anything else about the possible creator/creators of the universe. Does it have to be sentient? How are you defining complexity? Again your argument fails to show why god has to be the creator of the universe.
You are simply talking about evaluating and describing God in terms of the universe. The existence of the universe proves that God exists, as I have shown you over and over. If you really want to learn about what God is, and how He works internally, you need to go to God and get the answers. Universe terms will never explain Him to you. Only He will be able to do that.''The existence of the universe proves that God exists'' No it doesn't and you are evading the questions. Where in your argument does it say that the universe can only have 1 creator and it has to be a god as opposed to multiple creators? Or multiple non-god creators? Badecker 0 - Astargath 100 yet again.... What? You can't even stick to the sub-topic that we are talking about. What's the matter. Finding out that all you have is propaganda talk? Machines have makers. And machine universe has such a great Maker - as shown by C&E, entropy, and complexity, combined - that its Maker has to be God. ''that its Maker has to be God.'' ''has'' how do you know it has to be God? How do you know it's not a few gods or other causes? |
|
|
|
^^^ The math works out the same with 3 or more sticks, care to prove me wrong? When I say prove I don't mean linking youtube videos of Tyson on an MSM talk show making unsubstantiated claims. Why does adding a 3rd stick (or hole) change anything?  The truth is you're full of shit and the Earth is flat and motionless. Where is the math there? That's an image with no math. with 3 sticks far away enough and using trigonometry to get the angles, a close sun does not work, it has to be far away and the earth has to be round, sorry. |
|
|
|
It's ok I will start again, you wont run away this time with your typical bullshit paragraphs. Entropy: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. Cause and effect: We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother. Complexity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_abovehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuningAnd again, debunked. Wow! You can do big copy and pastes! Big bang is irrelevant because its theory only suggests that it might have existed, not that it did exist, and not that it was the thing that started the universe if it existed. There are lots of effects that we haven't found the cause for. But we know that there is a cause for them, because we have found a great number of effects with a cause, and not even one that we can prove has NO cause. Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one. You just blab your garbage over and over. You should feel sorry for me, since I have to repeat your fails over and over. Actually, it's fun.  ''Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.'' No it doesn't as I said, it's a fallacy. ''fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.'' Learn to read. Let's see. Which point in and of the universe is the universe? Why, all of them combined, of course. Which point requires cause and effect? Why, all of them, of course. Equals, the whole universe requires cause and effect. Scientific probability holds that when something is probable beyond a certain point, its opposite is impossible. Let's wait until we find that first non-C&E effect before we rule out scientific probability. After all, even your decision to rule out scientific probability on this point is a caused decision.
Even assuming all your premises are true, ultimately your argument fails to provide any evidence pointing to what actually created the universe, your complexity argument is very simple. You said it yourself too, whatever created the universe has to be more complex than it. Even if I agree on the premise too, it still doesn't say anything else about the possible creator/creators of the universe. Does it have to be sentient? How are you defining complexity? Again your argument fails to show why god has to be the creator of the universe.
You are simply talking about evaluating and describing God in terms of the universe. The existence of the universe proves that God exists, as I have shown you over and over. If you really want to learn about what God is, and how He works internally, you need to go to God and get the answers. Universe terms will never explain Him to you. Only He will be able to do that.''The existence of the universe proves that God exists'' No it doesn't and you are evading the questions. Where in your argument does it say that the universe can only have 1 creator and it has to be a god as opposed to multiple creators? Or multiple non-god creators? Badecker 0 - Astargath 100 yet again.... |
|
|
|
''Yet you fail to recognize that evolution from Creature A to Creature/Missing-Link B has to have thousands or millions of missing links between them to make such a transformation viable. Some of these would have to exist within the fossil record, but we can't find them. Yet, evolution theory doesn't work without them.'' I don't know how can someone keep saying the same shit after I gave him 20 different links to read about it. Some people are just stupid. There is no such thing as a missing link, they are called transitional fossils. A few examples of what you think doesn't exist here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Prominent_examplesThere you go with the same old crap again. Those fossils aren't transitional fossils because not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from, or transitioned to, for that matter. If it is a transitional fossil, where is even one fossil - I mean, literally one... not one group... one - that was the immediately previous form that one of your transitional fossils transitioned from, or one of the direct forms that your transitional fossil transitioned to. Show us one, and prove that it was the ONE that your transitional fossil transitioned from or to. You can't do it. There aren't any. Wake up and smell the coffee. Evolution is a hoax. ''not one of them has the immediate fossil that it transitioned from'' So you want all the millions of fossils one after each other? Do you understand how difficult it is for a fossil to exist? https://www.quora.com/Why-havent-we-found-the-missing-links-in-human-evolutionAnyways, we can still see how evolution works, shown in the first answer there. Unless of course you think it's a coincidence that the dating numbers and how the fossils look match correctly. |
|
|
|
It's ok I will start again, you wont run away this time with your typical bullshit paragraphs. Entropy: Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside. Cause and effect: We don't know that everything needs a cause, maybe some events happen spontaneously. There is actually evidence that some sub-atomic particles form and disappear for no reason, with no cause. Even assuming that there is a first cause, the argument utterly fails to address how we can know its identity. Why not some kind of impersonal, eternal cosmic force? Why not shape-shifting aliens from another dimension? Why not a God that sends Christians to hell and atheists to heaven? Or maybe the simplest of all, why not the Big Bang as the first cause? There is nothing in the argument to rule out the existence of multiple first causes. The argument also suffers from the fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause. For instance, while it is absolutely true that within a flock of sheep that every member ("an individual sheep") has a mother, it does not therefore follow that the flock has a mother. Complexity: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_abovehttps://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_fine_tuningAnd again, debunked. Wow! You can do big copy and pastes! Big bang is irrelevant because its theory only suggests that it might have existed, not that it did exist, and not that it was the thing that started the universe if it existed. There are lots of effects that we haven't found the cause for. But we know that there is a cause for them, because we have found a great number of effects with a cause, and not even one that we can prove has NO cause. Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one. You just blab your garbage over and over. You should feel sorry for me, since I have to repeat your fails over and over. Actually, it's fun. ''Scientific probability rules out the possibility for a non-cause effect until we find one.'' No it doesn't as I said, it's a fallacy. ''fallacy of composition: what is true of a member of a group is not necessarily true for the group as a whole. Just because most things within the universe require a cause/causes, does not mean that the universe itself requires a cause.'' Learn to read. Even assuming all your premises are true, ultimately your argument fails to provide any evidence pointing to what actually created the universe, your complexity argument is very simple. You said it yourself too, whatever created the universe has to be more complex than it. Even if I agree on the premise too, it still doesn't say anything else about the possible creator/creators of the universe. Does it have to be sentient? How are you defining complexity? Again your argument fails to show why god has to be the creator of the universe. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the stale copy pasta, do you post any OC? Only "party" approved material, amirite? "we" have access to unlimited information and it shows NASA is propaganda lies and the earth is flat. I can't argue with this first statement. The artilleryman was given a sheet with a whole bunch calculations for firing vertically with one labeled "earth curvature". I can label a pile of shit as chocolate fudge but it doesn't make it so. The artillery man never uses "earth curvature" when firing on line of sight targets horizontally and the manual even states the planar model is used. Eratosthenes if such a person ever existed assumes the sun 93 million miles away, with a close small sun the math works out the same. Chocolate fudge anybody? Finally notice the disrespect aimed at the German soldier implying he's such a dimwitted uncivilized savage he can't into personal hygiene. It's the Jews behind this post, they're behind this conspiracy. Bolshevik Jews murdered 60 million Christians yet one can walk down the street with a communist flag and nobody bats an eye. Walk down the street with swastika and the police will lose their minds because the Jew and his media lied about Hitler and muh 6 million. With 3 different sticks instead of 2, the math doesn't work out even if you think the sun is close and small, that's how easy it is to disprove the flat earth. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
