Twisting Facts to fit preconceived notions (hell, atheist, Baptist, bible)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was listening to Dennis Prager (hi, Dennis) yesterday and he had a professor of something or other on. He was tying to explain that all the evidence of the Universe all-but-proves a god/creator.
Expanding Universe=Proof of god
Universe hasn't been here forever=proof of god
...
In one of his ads for Prager U or the like he asserts that every page of science is proof of god.
Sean Hannity says similar things, but not nearly so often.
People here do it in their own thread (GoldnRule comes to mind)
It has been going on for a long time. Back in primitive days, I could understand how people would ascribe "god did it" to natural phenomenon they don't understand, such as lightning and thunder, but in the modern era, why do these people have to constantly twist, contort and distort facts of nature to fit their silly antiquated "god" theory.
I suspect they don't really have any confidence in their outlandish Fairy Tale and have no choice to make such ludicrous manipulations, but I wonder what you think. Why do they have to distory everything in their failed attempt to bolster their beliefs.
I was listening to Dennis Prager (hi, Dennis) yesterday and he had a professor of something or other on. He was tying to explain that all the evidence of the Universe all-but-proves a god/creator.
Expanding Universe=Proof of god
Universe hasn't been here forever=proof of god
...
In one of his ads for Prager U or the like he asserts that every page of science is proof of god.
Sean Hannity says similar things, but not nearly so often.
People here do it in their own thread (GoldnRule comes to mind)
It has been going on for a long time. Back in primitive days, I could understand how people would ascribe "god did it" to natural phenomenon they don't understand, such as lightning and thunder, but in the modern era, why do these people have to constantly twist, contort and distort facts of nature to fit their silly antiquated "god" theory.
I suspect they don't really have any confidence in their outlandish Fairy Tale and have no choice to make such ludicrous manipulations, but I wonder what you think. Why do they have to distory everything in their failed attempt to bolster their beliefs.
So refute the claims, if you can.
If the universe is expanding...it had to have started at some point. It cannot expand indefinitely. If it had a start...what caused it?
If the universe is expanding...it had to have started at some point. It cannot expand indefinitely. If it had a start...what caused it?
Proving a negative isn't possible. However, I offer a complete lack of evidence to support the believer's position as my evidence. Sort of like if you search Central Park, NYC, NY and find no eviidence of a herd of T-Rex, you can pretty much be sure that a claim that there is such a herd is disproven.
NATURE. It is what it is, it isn't what it isn't, and it isn't the work-product of some sky-daddy. BTW, how come you never inquire about what caused your god to come into existence. How come you offer ZERO evidence to support the existence of your god. Why can the ball ONLY be in my court? HMMMmmmmm! After all, you're the one with the absolutely OUTLANDISH theory.
Last edited by Salty Water; 03-31-2021 at 01:00 PM..
Proving a negative isn't possible. However, I offer a complete lack of evidence to support the believer's position as my evidence. Sort of like if you search Central Park, NYC, NY and find no eviidence of a herd of T-Rex, you can pretty much be sure that a claim that there is such a herd is disproven.
NATURE. It is what it is, it isn't what it isn't, and it isn't the work-product of some sky-daddy. BTW, how come you never inquire about what caused your god to come into existence. How come you offer ZERO evidence to support the existence of your god. Why can the ball ONLY be in my court? HMMMmmmmm! After all, you're the one with the absolutely OUTLANDISH theory.
meh. ok. sure. Just what I thought. You bring absolutely nothing new to the argument, but more crass, obnoxious, rude statements. Let me know if you ever want to have a real, intelligent discussion. At this point I have no reason to think you do.
meh. ok. sure. Just what I thought. You bring absolutely nothing new to the argument, but more crass, obnoxious, rude statements. Let me know if you ever want to have a real, intelligent discussion. At this point I have no reason to think you do.
What a world-class and pathetic COP OUT you offered. Nothing New, you say. That's because you proffered NOTHING, new, old or otherwise, to debate against. Just crickets from the Kool-Aid guzzler.
I suggest you learn the meaning of words like crass, etc., before you so stupidly misuse them. Have someone read and explain their definitions to you so you don't humiliate yourself again.
I would offer that before I can engage an intelligent discussion with you, you have to first say something intelligent to discuss, and judging from your track record, it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.
I was listening to Dennis Prager (hi, Dennis) yesterday and he had a professor of something or other on. He was tying to explain that all the evidence of the Universe all-but-proves a god/creator.
Expanding Universe=Proof of god
Universe hasn't been here forever=proof of god
...
In one of his ads for Prager U or the like he asserts that every page of science is proof of god.
Sean Hannity says similar things, but not nearly so often.
People here do it in their own thread (GoldnRule comes to mind)
It has been going on for a long time. Back in primitive days, I could understand how people would ascribe "god did it" to natural phenomenon they don't understand, such as lightning and thunder, but in the modern era, why do these people have to constantly twist, contort and distort facts of nature to fit their silly antiquated "god" theory.
I suspect they don't really have any confidence in their outlandish Fairy Tale and have no choice to make such ludicrous manipulations, but I wonder what you think. Why do they have to distory everything in their failed attempt to bolster their beliefs.
So in other words Science disproves God because we know how things work as opposed to the primitive days when people had to resort to "God did it." I don't understand why this line of reason is used so often.
Intelligent men centuries ago knew that the Bible and Science are not in competition but answer two very different questions. Not to mention that men of faith gave birth to our understanding of how things work despite the "primitive" belief in God. Mendel, A Catholic monk, called the father of genetics, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, van Leeuwenhoek, the father of microbiology and on and on.
“The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go”-Galileo. Christians may differ on who go to heaven but even then the idea that the Bible and Science answer two distinct questions is clear.
meh. ok. sure. Just what I thought. You bring absolutely nothing new to the argument, but more crass, obnoxious, rude statements. Let me know if you ever want to have a real, intelligent discussion. At this point I have no reason to think you do.
meh. ok. sure. Just what I thought. You bring absolutely nothing new to the argument, but more crass, obnoxious, rude statements. Let me know if you ever want to have a real, intelligent discussion. At this point I have no reason to think you do.
Taking your ball and running home with bruised nerves again BFUN?
Of course. Even Theism uses that evidence to support the God -claim. But others know that isn't the real argument at all. The BB event pulled together under its' own gravity and when compressed to superheat and super -energy, expanded again ('exploded' as some might describe it) or so the theory goes, and with no need for a god, nor is it evidence for one.
No, the smarter god apologists have to revert to asking what made the stuff from which the Big Bang event (and probably many others like it) came. That's the Real 'cosmic origins' debate and the BB is really passe as any useful part of the Creation debate.
And also, as Iwas observed recently, a Creator isn't an argument for any particular religion at all. It only leads to 'Which God?' But no doubt 'Who made everything, then?' is always going to be, the god -claimant fondly believes, the ultimate atheist -stumper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
