they can dish it but...?

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
atheists make bizarre conclusions about how life began, theism is no less of a fairy tale than the big bang THEORY is.

I've explained this to you before.

A THEORY is the strongest proof we have in science. It's even stronger than a "fact". This is because it is composed of many thousands or millions of facts. It is an explanation of an entire subject area, which has NEVER been refuted, and has strong predictive power.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really, how do you get everything from nothing?
Kelly

I have explained many, many times why your question doesn't make sense, since it presupposes by its very form the prior existence of something.

Tell me, how do you get a God from nothing?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, when speaking how it all begun if you look at the time before the
big bang there are a lot of "it is illogical to think about it since time
wasn’t there either" it isn't like there are not issues with atheist beliefs
it is only that they don't like thinking or talking with theists.
Kelly

There are things our brains can't handle, sure. That doesn't make it wrong.


[edit; we can only ride the train of logical deduction to the terminus, and no further - the rails don't go any further.]

Originally posted by scottishinnz
There are things our brains can't handle, sure. That doesn't make it wrong.


[edit; we can only ride the train of logical deduction to the terminus, and no further - the rails don't go any further.]

That is the part I do find amusing, you run into a little issue like
all things from nothing, and yet you cannot buy into God, as if one is
some how easier understand than the other.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I have explained many, many times why your question doesn't make sense, since it presupposes by its very form the prior existence of something.

Tell me, how do you get a God from nothing?

I do not get God from nothing, I don't believe God came from nothing
either; I believe God always was, is, and always will be.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I've explained this to you before.

A THEORY is the strongest proof we have in science. It's even stronger than a "fact". This is because it is composed of many thousands or millions of facts. It is an explanation of an entire subject area, which has NEVER been refuted, and has strong predictive power.

Your theory isn't proof of anything, it simply is an explaination, no
better than a story to surround the current state of things. That makes
it okay when discussing the current state of things, but when we go
back in time to talk about the beginning of all things and how we got
here from there, parts of the beliefs that people use with it takes it
right up there with a large number of myths found all over the place.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is the part I do find amusing, you run into a little issue like
all things from nothing, and yet you cannot buy into God, as if one is
some how easier understand than the other.
Kelly

No. I just know when to say "current modes of investigation don't allow us to know that".

Sure, there may be a "god", although I don't see the need for one. If there is though, he's just not the God you think he is.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not get God from nothing, I don't believe God came from nothing
either; I believe God always was, is, and always will be.
Kelly

So why is that any better or worse than my explanation?

The Universe just is.

There is no requirement for any God in my explanation, rendering it more parsimonious.

Originally posted by amannion
Hold on there Kelly, you know better than that.
Atheism is not science. Don't confuse the two.

I do not believe I said atheism was science, but that atheist have
beliefs about the universe. Now I do believe they take some of thier
beliefs wrap them in what they call science. As if that some how make
them bullet proof when they don't want to admit all that they are
doing is telling a story on how things could have happened. Simply
having a modern story go up against an old story does not
automatically make the old story wrong, as some seem to assume.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your theory isn't proof of anything, it simply is an explaination, no
better than a story to surround the current state of things. That makes
it okay when discussing the current state of things, but when we go
back in time to talk about the beginning of all things and how we got
here from there, parts of the beliefs that people use with it takes it
right up there with a large number of myths found all over the place.
Kelly

Except we have physical evidence. In fact, pretty much everything I tell you is based upon experimental evidence (occasionally with a little conjecture, although this is always based upon verified information).

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So why is that any better or worse than my explanation?

The Universe just is.

There is no requirement for any God in my explanation, rendering it more parsimonious.

You remind me of a mechanic what has take apart a car put it back
together, then wonders what where all the extra parts came from with
that logic. The universe is what it is, not denying that!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You remind me of a mechanic what has take apart a car put it back
together, then wonders what where all the extra parts came from with
that logic. The universe is what it is, not denying that!
Kelly

So what?

Why is your explanation better than mine? Where is your evidence for a God? I can't see it! Is it hiding behind a rock or something?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Except we have physical evidence. In fact, pretty much everything I tell you is based upon experimental evidence (occasionally with a little conjecture, although this is always based upon verified information).

Your physical evidence can have many stories attached the them.
Claims you have evidence does not make your conclusions valid.
I am working on that paper too by the way.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Your physical evidence can have many stories attached the them.
Claims you have evidence does not make your conclusions valid.
I am working on that paper too by the way.
Kelly

Yes, but based on that evidence, only some stories are valid. And as the data continues to accrue, our guesses become more and more rigorously validated.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
atheists make bizarre conclusions about how life began, theism is no less of a fairy tale than the big bang THEORY is.

Why do creationists keep trying to make out that scientific theories are atheistic in nature? The vast majority of Christians in the world today accept both evolution and the big bang theory as fact (or are simply not educated enough to know what they are). Many, probably even the majority of scientists are Christian or at least theist.