close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

This is evidence of God

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Wake_jumper, Jan 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    And we have a winner.

    That's how I landed in the middle of the "Is there a god" question. Some answered yes, some answered no, I answered maybe.
     
  2. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's not what you've been saying. You said...


    This is incorrect.
     

  3. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    You still haven't addressed this...

     
  4. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    17,798
    Likes Received:
    1,591
    Location:
    KCXO
    So after about 70 posts you feel comfortable in restating this falsehood again as if I had not challenged you on it pages ago. The fact that you list all of those as alternate explanations further illustrates your shallow "popular media" level of understanding of these issues. Those theories are complimentary, not contradictory.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  5. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    6,883
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    #define NULL ((void *)0)
    No, actually - I'm just curious as to how long you'll avoid admitting you made an accusation you can't back up with evidence. You're *still* avoiding that. My bet is you'll avoid it forever. Would you care to prove me wrong?

    if so
    Please
    a) Provide evidence I've ever claimed that science can prove the existence or nonexistence of a deity (which would disprove the 'can't back up with evidence' portion, taking your statement out of contention for being a statement made without evidence)
    or
    b) Admit you made an accusation you have no evidence for (Which would disprove the 'will avoid admitting it' portion, by simply admitting it)
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  6. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    17,798
    Likes Received:
    1,591
    Location:
    KCXO
    Nor has he addressed this.

     
  7. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,832
    Likes Received:
    910
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    The question: "Do you believe in God/gods?" cannot have an answer of maybe.

    Do you believe God or gods exist?
     
  8. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    And you are unaware of any point in the BBT that is not explained by the math?


    How was the fuse lit on the big bang? Really, was it even a bang, or a chill?

    And you see no questions left to answer? Really?
     
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Void, you tend to have an unnatural attachment to certain perceived details.

    Have I not simply asked, and stated I would accept your answer?

    Quit dodging the question.
     
  10. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are continuing to misrepresent the argument. No one is claiming that our knowledge of the BBT is complete or absolute. You claimed that there is no math to illustrate elements of the BBT that there absolutely ARE. And the fact that you keep trying to drag the argument in to one of the BBT being final and absolutely explored only illustrates that you INTENTIONALLY being dishonest. Your usual MO.
     
  11. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    6,883
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    #define NULL ((void *)0)
    And here he attempts to avoid yet again.

    I am not the one dodging the question. You know (or *should* know) well that I have stated multiple times that I do not think that it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of a creator.

    I have asked you to:

    a) Provide evidence that I have ever claimed otherwise
    or
    b) Admit you made that accusation without evidence.

    So far you have done nothing other than avoid doing either, and now you are adding on an attempt to claim it's me avoiding a question.

    So again,
    a) Provide evidence that I have ever claimed otherwise
    b) Admit you made that accusation without evidence.

    You claimed integrity is key in another thread, did you not?
    If so, which has more integrity - Claiming that I'm avoiding a question so you can avoid doing one of the above - or simply admitting you made the accusation without evidence and, you know, hey, your bad?
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  12. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are unbelievable. He's dodging a question? You act like a child do you know that? You've done nothing but run around the thread dodging one question after the next.
     
  13. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    17,798
    Likes Received:
    1,591
    Location:
    KCXO
    Is that what you are harping over? That the Lambda-CDM model doesn't cover an area it never claimed to cover? Really? Lambda-CDM is a theory about how the universe developed, not how it began. You do realize that there are other theories and models that do cover how "the fuse lit on the big bang"? Like cosmic inflation and the ekpyrotic model. In much the same way as abiogenesis covers how life began and evolution covers how it developed, these other theories cover how the universe began and Lambda-CDM covers how it developed.

    You've been reading to many back issues of Omni again. Lambda-CDM is not and has never been intended to be the be all and end all explanation for eveything. It is only one of a set of theories that explains why the universe is the way it is today.
     
  14. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please address the following...

     
  15. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Just because you asked, I'll answer.



    No.

    :tongueout:
     
  16. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please address the following...

     
  17. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Republic of Texas
    Let's summarize a bit here. I claimed the math does not explain everything about BBT, you claimed it did, and when I point to an area not explained by the math, that doesn't count.

    OK Got it.

    :cool:
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  18. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2010
    Messages:
    3,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    No you didn't. You claimed math does not explain aspects of the BBT that it absolutely does.

    You're not going to be allowed to restate your argument to slither out of being dishonest.

    Or where you just wrong? Which is it?
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  19. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    17,798
    Likes Received:
    1,591
    Location:
    KCXO
    So, you are claiming victory based on your ignorance of the scope of Lambda-CDM? And the fact that the area you are pointing at is explained by other theories (more math) doesn't sway you at all?

    I think all you have shown is how unqualified you are to be speaking on this topic.

    And this point still stands, you said the scientists where creating "extrapolated" and even "imagined" data, that is a far cry from what you are saying now. I will simply assume that you can not support your original position due to ignorance, incompetence and dishonesty.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  20. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    34,969
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Republic of Texas

    I have offered to simply ask, which I did, and take you at your word. That's reasonable.

    And you won't answer. So?

    You tend to get stuck on minor details.
    I'm not susceptible to remote control.

    Last try, then I'm moving on, whether you can or not.

    Do you believe that the scientific knowledge of all of humanity proves or disproves whether or not a deity has or has not existed?

    Whatever your answer, I'll believe that is your answer.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.