What would you accept as evidence of a creator?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Kelly, that you believe there were vegetarian T-Rex's, along with an assortment of other dinosaurs, living on a big wooden boat whilst the earth had been flooded by an incompetent creator God is, without doubt, the most bonkers belief i have come across in my 33 years on this planet.

hey don't forget there was vegetarian lions and other sorts of animals as well 😉

Do you really think God was gonna have Noah build the ark, let the earth flood and not worry about little issues like this?

Originally posted by Nicksten
hey don't forget there was vegetarian lions and other sorts of animals as well 😉

Do you really think God was gonna have Noah build the ark, let the earth flood and not worry about little issues like this?

Do you really think God was gonna have Noah build the ark, let the earth flood and not worry about little issues like this?
Atheists such as myself read this as:

Do you really think [the unsophisticated goat herders who invented this taleReveal Hidden Content

inspired of course by countless other variants of the same thing written before the Bible was penned

about some "G"od having] Noah build [some] ark, [and] let[ting] the earth flood[, would] not worry about little issues like this?

To which I say, in response, that they wouldn't worry at all! next question please :]

Originally posted by KellyJay
Or such a being has put all the evidence in front of you and you refuse to look at
it.
Kelly

For the sake of argument, what do you think constitutes good evidence KellyJay that I have purposely overlooked?

Tales in some ancient book written by uneducated, unsophisticated, bronze/iron age people about talking snakes and resurrections of people created via virgin births!???
Perhaps you refer to accounts of the supernatural on the part of millions of people who lack the critical thought to stop and really question their "experiences"!?
Or perhaps you mean the poorly constructed "proof"s of "G"od on the part of those who are pitching at the masses!? For example such "proofs" constructed by the likes of William C. Lane who rely more on their charisma and salesmanship than good old, common sense, logic?
Or maybe..just maybe you refer to the fact that the universe being so complicated for you or anyone else to wrap their heads around (as a whole) implies, for you, some "G"od must have done it!???

Trust me KellyJay, I've seen this crap countless times - such "evidence" is, to me at least, worthless.

Originally posted by Agerg
For the sake of argument, what do you think constitutes good evidence KellyJay that I have purposely overlooked?

Tales in some ancient book written by uneducated, unsophisticated, bronze/iron age people about talking snakes and resurrections of people created via virgin births!???
Perhaps you refer to accounts of the supernatural on the part of millions of ...[text shortened]... n this crap countless times - such "evidence" is, to me at least, worthless.

Tales from a book however old we as a race have been applying since we
learned how to write, so just because it is old does not automatically mean it
should be dismissed. When looking at the questions raised if all you got is that
you reject it because of age of the writing; you are not standing on very solid
ground for your rejection.

Uneducated and unsophisticated speaks more to you arrogance than it does
to the writers of that age as well. If you denigrate them you can ignore them
is not a very wise thing to do, especially since no one has come up with
anything better since the times of their writings; moreover, they were writing
about things that happened to them what they saw and went through do
not become false simply due to a passage of time, if they did experience them.
If they encountered God and they write about it your views about them no
matter how bad are meaningless with respect to the truthfulness of their
experiences. If you can avoid rejecting out of hand for those two reasons and
actually look at what gets presented closely I do think you'll see things in a
little clearer light; however, if all your going to do is reject as things come up
because they came up...I think your blinders will keep you in the dark.

I'll get to the evidence later when I have more time.
Kelly

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Happy Now! coming here n causing trouble.

sorry kev. I thought if i wound them up a bit i might stand a better chance of beating a few of them at chess.

Originally posted by NOTGATE
sorry kev. I thought if i wound them up a bit i might stand a better chance of beating a few of them at chess.

Are you inviting people to play you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you ignostic, you don't know anything, you do not need a battery to run a motor
vehicle, the battery is merely used to provide power to get it started, after which the
alternator provides power, if its petroleum you need a battery to initially provide a
charge to the electrodes in the spark plug or heat from glow plugs if its diesel (diesel
a ...[text shortened]...
such things as God provides all things because he loves us and we are precious in his
eyes.

right, i think you're getting a little hysterical there. clam down. it's just paper with printed words on it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
right, i think you're getting a little hysterical there. clam down. it's just paper with printed words on it.

No, its little pixels of light on a screen. 🙂
KJ

Originally posted by Agerg
For the sake of argument, what do you think constitutes good evidence KellyJay that I have purposely overlooked?

Tales in some ancient book written by uneducated, unsophisticated, bronze/iron age people about talking snakes and resurrections of people created via virgin births!???
Perhaps you refer to accounts of the supernatural on the part of millions of ...[text shortened]... n this crap countless times - such "evidence" is, to me at least, worthless.

Is there a reason you count what people present as evidence, worthless? Don't
you have to look at the total picture and see if there are points there? Worthless
suggests to me that you've not taken anything seriously. I cannot say that what
people present to me to show me the universe is billions of years old as worthless,
but I don't have to agree if I don't buy into why the claims are being made.

It seems too easy to dismiss all things being said because someone may say or
agree with a point you totally don’t agree with, but that does not mean that
any and all things they say are, well…worthless.
Kelly

Originally posted by Nicksten
1st you say:
[b]just to clarify so you dont make the same mistake again - atheist do not believe the universe came from nothing.

and then you say:
the difference is, evolution from inanimate matter is improbable and noahs ark is impossible.
id go for improbable over impossible every time.

Just to clarify, it is clear that your story book ...[text shortened]... lution started from nothing. KellyJay's remark is thus right, you're the one that is mistaken.[/b]

im confused, what story book??? where did i say evolution comes from nothing???? what on earth are you talking about?????

Originally posted by stellspalfie
im confused, what story book??? where did i say evolution comes from nothing???? what on earth are you talking about?????

Evolution = story book
You didn't have had to say that evolution comes from nothing. What I say is that by supporting it, you automatically agree with it. I know that evolution in itself can only be possible if there was something to evolve, but to me, evolution flows and forms part of abiogenises and it from the big bang. I and many others see this as one and the same thing!
It is just split up in different sections.

Originally posted by Agerg
For the sake of argument, what do you think constitutes good evidence KellyJay that I have purposely overlooked?

Tales in some ancient book written by uneducated, unsophisticated, bronze/iron age people about talking snakes and resurrections of people created via virgin births!???
Perhaps you refer to accounts of the supernatural on the part of millions of n this crap countless times - such "evidence" is, to me at least, worthless.

Tales from a book however old we as a race have been applying since we learned how to write, so just because it is old does not automatically mean it should be dismissed. When looking at the questions raised if all you got is that you reject it because of age of the writing; you are not standing on very solid ground for your rejection.
You are understating what I actually said to knock down a strawman here kellyJay. I did not say or imply I dismiss the Bible merely because it is old. I dismiss it because fanciful and childish tales of mythical creatures and magical events (like snakes that talk, and ressurections (respectively)) were written by people at a time when the sum total of scientific knowledge could probably be expressed, verbosely, in fewer words that the max word-count for a post on here. I'm not saying these people were thick, they just didn't know anything. Indeed to explain things like water falling from the sky (rain) they either had to say something like

a) I don't know what makes water fall out of the sky, or even where it comes from, or
b) some magical being who lives in the sky sends us water to feed our plants.

The Bible is just a collection of bullchit stories invented (or in most cases borrowed from stories in other books, cultures) to give them answers of type (b). As such I dismiss it on those grounds - not just because it is old.

Uneducated and unsophisticated speaks more to you arrogance than it does to the writers of that age as well. If you denigrate them you can ignore them is not a very wise thing to do, especially since no one has come up with anything better since the times of their writings;...
Not arrogant, just better educated and with better access to knowledge than those people. As for "no one has come up with anything better" I wholehearted reject this statement on the grounds that science has done a far better job of explaining the way things in the universe happen than the Bible has ever done.

...moreover, they were writing about things that happened to them what they saw and went through do not become false simply due to a passage of time if they did experience them.
Again see my first block. You are mis-representingwhat I said here (why do you do this? why is it that most theists do this!???). They are false not just because they're written in an old book - they're false because they're physically inconsistent/impossible assertions written by a collection of ignorant people, for ignorant people.

If they encountered God and they write about it your views about them no matter how bad are meaningless with respect to the truthfulness of their experiences. If you can avoid rejecting out of hand for those two reasons and actually look at what gets presented closely I do think you'll see things in a little clearer light; however, if all your going to do is reject as things come up because they came up...I think your blinders will keep you in the dark
I am confident, beyond all reasonable doubt, that these people experienced none of the miracles or magical events mentioned in the Bible. Similarly, I'm confident, beyond all reasonable doubt, I cannot fly. In both these cases, it will take incredibly strong evidence, and arguments based on such to change my stance.

Originally posted by NOTGATE
sorry kev. I thought if i wound them up a bit i might stand a better chance of beating a few of them at chess.

I've tried, it makes them worse, like flicking a rattle snake on the nose.😉

Originally posted by Nicksten
Everybody knows that what Donny said is true (what was referenced here), yet you still believe it could not have been God that is the creator? It just had to be something else, something else that was thumb sucked by a imbecile.

I think it is only fair that if Christians refer to God, it's the Christian God. All other 'gods' will be referred directly to their human created names.

It could have been God that is the creator, but as of yet have to provide any evidence. So, the floor is all yours.

Originally posted by Nicksten
Evolution = story book
You didn't have had to say that evolution comes from nothing. What I say is that by supporting it, you automatically agree with it. I know that evolution in itself can only be possible if there was something to evolve, but to me, evolution flows and forms part of abiogenises and it from the big bang. I and many others see this as one and the same thing!
It is just split up in different sections.

im still not getting it. are you saying i support a theory that states something came from nothing? if so could you clarify which theory that is?