How do you know there is no evidence for God? Are you sure you are not missing something?
For me when I look at creation, the more I am in awe of it and it seems it speaks volumes of evidence. I can’t fathom life coming from non life and I can’t fathom all this from nothing and I can’t understand how right and wrong is right and wrong without a moral agent and I can’t fathom how consciousness comes from rocks over billions of years.
Feel free to share with me your naturalistic beliefs but that’s all they are. Where in anyone’s experience do you find something coming from nothing and where do you find in anyone’s everyday experience consciousness arising from non consciousness and life from none life or morality from nonmoral chemistry.
Let us assume they do create life in a lab or create consciousness in a robot or create something out of nothing to prove this nonsense. Guess who did it?! Intelligent human beings! Not nothing and not unconscious beings and not non living intelligent human beings. It will only prove that consciousness come from consciousness, life from life, morality from moral agents and something from something!
So, for me there is much more evidence for God and none going for atheism. Actually, our everyday experience screams at us that there must be God! But hey I could be wrong in some of my reasoning and I’m sure you are going to point that out. But hopefully you can understand a bit of my perspective and be a bit open. Take care for now…
Poor TJ, it’s great how you can’t show your imaginary friend exists and have to keep trying to gaslight me with your attempts to claim I must be missing something. Show that something I’ve supposedly missed, dear.
Yep, when any cultist looks at reality, they have to claim that their imaginary friends made reality. Curious how not one of you theists can show your claims are true. I’m still waiting for you to show that your god merely exists and that it is the right one. That you can’t fathom something is just an appeal to personal ignorance logical fallacy e.g. “I can’t grasp something so my imaginary friend must exist”.
Unsurprisingly, you cultists can’t agree on what this supposed “moral agent” even wants as morality, and you can’t agree on what is “right” or “wrong”. Poof goes your lies about “objective morality.
Curious how my experience does include seeing morality coming from chemistry. That’s the only way it happens since you can’t show your god exists or any supernatural phenomena exist. Chrsitians, and every other cultist, have had millennia to show that their claims are true. You have all failed. Your claims that “I haven’t seen this, therefore it isn’t true” can also be applied to the claims your bible makes. *You* didn’t see your god do any of what the bible claims, so by your own argument, no reason to believe in your cult’s nonsense.
Your argument also fails with the garbage you have that if humans create life or consciousness. That life or consciousness *can* be created from intelligence doesn’t mean it *always* is created by intelligence. Nice fail, dear.
It’s also amusing that you are an atheist, sure that other gods than yours don’t exist, so there is rather obviously evidence for you that other gods don’t exist. Happily, our everyday experience shows no evidence for any gods at all, and you simply lie. Like every other theist, you make baseless assertions that your god and only your god exists.
I understand your perspective and your perspective is just like any theist’s is. You all insist each other are wrong and claim you are right. It’s quite a circular firing squad.
You said: “Your claims that “I haven’t seen this, therefore it isn’t true”…”
This isn’t my argument. What I stated in the first paragraph is that I can’t fathom….
And then I said: “Feel free to share with me…” how these things can be from an atheistic perspective and at the same time asked you: “Where in anyone’s experience (atheist or theist alike) do we find these things happening like life from non life. We don’t! Atheists claim life came from non life, and theists don’t hold to this position. The theist’s position is consistent with our observations, whereas atheism is not.
Then, I mentioned that even if we were to create life in a lab, this took prior life to do so, which would further demonstrate the position of the theist and not the atheist.
So all your conclusions do not apply as you did not understand my argument. You were refuting a straw man. Hopefully, this makes more sense. Maybe it is a bad argument, but at least you may better understand it now to expose it as a bad argument.
Now, I am going to try to expose a flaw in your argument.
You said: “Unsurprisingly, you cultists can’t agree on what this supposed “moral agent” even wants as morality, and you can’t agree on what is “right” or “wrong”. Poof goes your lies about “objective morality.”
The flaw I see in this reasoning is that if a category of people (say, those who believe objective morality must have a moral agent) can’t agree on what the moral agent deems moral dosn’t follow that morality is not objective. It could be some in that category are wrong and some are right, and it doesn’t mean all of them are wrong.
If what you argue is the case then I can use this reasoning to conclude that consciousness can’t come from matter since consciousness scientist who study this area and hold to this position can’t agree on what consciousness even is or how exactly matter produces consciousness. And so “poof goes” the “lie” of consciousness from matter. If that doesn’t follow for you, then you ought to see why your own argument against “objective morality” doesn’t follow.
Besides, for something to be “objective” doesn’t require consensus or else it wouldn’t be objective! Something that is objectively true is objectively true whether a majority agree on it or not!
Again, your argument fails in my view on many different things, but I could be wrong, and I’m sure you are going to try to point this out.
You said: “That life or consciousness *can* be created from intelligence doesn’t mean it *always* is created by intelligence.” Never claimed it couldn’t, but only that this would only prove that “life or consciousness can be created from intelligence”! That’s it! It doesn’t logically follow that non intelligence created life! This is very basic logic, and that is all I’m saying. I’m just stating the obvious. The obvious is consistent with theistic beliefs but is actually contradictory to atheistic beliefs.
The headline when this occurs should read: intelligent life creates intelligent life in a lab! That’s it. All else would be conjecture. Therefore, I would argue that this success would only support theism and not support atheism. Now, if the headline were to read: non intelligent life creates intelligent life in a lab, then that would be an observation that would support atheism!
P.S. I’m not sure if all atheists believe life came from non life, but it seems you do. I heard ideas about aliens or maybe life just always was or it depends on how we define life and some I assume argue for a different models of life sort of speak but if all atheist can’t agree on this then guess what: according to your own reasoning I should dismiss atheism for the same reason you dismiss theism. In your reasoning, you seem to require complete agreement among theists in order for theism to be true, but don’t tell me you got complete agreement amongst atheists!
So, you hold to a self-refuting position. I could be wrong, but it seems so to me thus far, or at least that is what I am arguing for now till you can show me otherwise!
You claiming you haven’t seen something or you can’t understand something and thus things don’t exist are the same.
As usual, you retreat back into god of the gaps arguments, TJ. You have yet to show your god merely exist or that it has created anything at all. You have no research and creationists can’t even convince each other about their nonsense. That we don’t see life forming all of the time, right now, simply indicates that the conditions aren’t right for it, and that’s what research is for, to show what those conditions are.
Curious how you have no observations that your god merely exists, so your claims about what we see being consistent with observations are false. If we create life in a lab, yep, we know intelligence can create life in a lab. That tells us nothing about what created life in the first place.
You are a typically ignorant Christian with no critical thinking skills. And nice to see you unable to show any “strawman” at all.
Yep, you tried and no surprise at all that your attempts fail miserably. Funny how you can’t show that morality is objective nor show a source for that morality. There is no need for any of theist claims to be right. They can be *all* wrong. Again, your lack of critical thinking skills is revealed.
Unsurprisingly, you also fail yet again since the argument isn’t between scientists to determine what consciousness is and where it comes from, it is between scientists and ignorant cultists like yourself. Scientists have evidence for their claims, even if these claims differ. Theists have nothing.
Still waiting for that objective morality, TJ. Where is it? Objectivity doesn’t require consensus, but it does require evidence that it exists. You have nothing, yet again.
It’s great when christians try to lie and claim that they didn’t claim that life can only come from their imaginary friend. You have claimed it can’t come from non-life, and yet you have no evidence to support that, and for your lies to work, humans can’t do any more research ever.
There are no facts to base any logic on, so your baseless nonsense fails yet again. You state a baseless bit of nonsense, not the “obvious”.
That you would argue incoherently isn’t surprising at all. That life created in the lab somehow proves that life can only be created by intelligence is again a lie from you.
You again show your typical ignorance with your “I’m not sure if all atheists believe…” nonsense. No evidence for aliens being involved. No evidence for whatever you want to invent as a “different models of life”. So just like your cult, if there is no evidence for your claims, there is no reason to accept them as true. You seem unable to grasp that your baseless lies aren’t equal to the evidence based science that is being performed.
Nope, no “self-refuting position” at all, just an ignorant Christian who has no evidence for his claims.
I stick by my posts above. But I would like to ask you a question:
If scientists were to create life in a lab, would that be consistent with one’s belief that an intelligent being created life or one’s belief that non intelligent random chance created life?
yep, you stick by your lies. So? Still no evidence for your imaginary friend, and you are fraud per your own silly bible.
it’s sweet to see incompetent cultists whine that their lies and fallacies are called out. Yes, dear, the god of the gaps argument is a fallacy, since it depends on an assumption that cannot be shown to be true.
if scientists were to create life in the lab, it would be evidence for the fact that humans can create life in the lab. It has nothing to say about if life can be created in other manners or if a god is needed or not.
“If scientists were to create life in the lab, it would be evidence for the fact that humans can create life in the lab” and I will just add that a scientist is an intelligent being and so I would say the life created in the lab was a result of intelligence and not random chance processes.
This is consistent with every theistic view of creation that I am aware of, and definitely Christian theism. This is not consistent with every atheistic view of how life was created by random natural processes that I’m aware of and definitely not your form of atheism as far as I can tell.
Again, still no evidence for any gods and that it matches your religious claims doesn’t make your religions true.
You again seem to think that your arguments from popularity fallacies work and they fail every single time. To return to the same lies is quite the dog returning to its vomit.
1love1god.com 
and yet still no evidence for your god or any god at all. Funny how that works out.
LikeLike
How do you know there is no evidence for God? Are you sure you are not missing something?
For me when I look at creation, the more I am in awe of it and it seems it speaks volumes of evidence. I can’t fathom life coming from non life and I can’t fathom all this from nothing and I can’t understand how right and wrong is right and wrong without a moral agent and I can’t fathom how consciousness comes from rocks over billions of years.
Feel free to share with me your naturalistic beliefs but that’s all they are. Where in anyone’s experience do you find something coming from nothing and where do you find in anyone’s everyday experience consciousness arising from non consciousness and life from none life or morality from nonmoral chemistry.
Let us assume they do create life in a lab or create consciousness in a robot or create something out of nothing to prove this nonsense. Guess who did it?! Intelligent human beings! Not nothing and not unconscious beings and not non living intelligent human beings. It will only prove that consciousness come from consciousness, life from life, morality from moral agents and something from something!
So, for me there is much more evidence for God and none going for atheism. Actually, our everyday experience screams at us that there must be God! But hey I could be wrong in some of my reasoning and I’m sure you are going to point that out. But hopefully you can understand a bit of my perspective and be a bit open. Take care for now…
LikeLike
Poor TJ, it’s great how you can’t show your imaginary friend exists and have to keep trying to gaslight me with your attempts to claim I must be missing something. Show that something I’ve supposedly missed, dear.
Yep, when any cultist looks at reality, they have to claim that their imaginary friends made reality. Curious how not one of you theists can show your claims are true. I’m still waiting for you to show that your god merely exists and that it is the right one. That you can’t fathom something is just an appeal to personal ignorance logical fallacy e.g. “I can’t grasp something so my imaginary friend must exist”.
Unsurprisingly, you cultists can’t agree on what this supposed “moral agent” even wants as morality, and you can’t agree on what is “right” or “wrong”. Poof goes your lies about “objective morality.
Curious how my experience does include seeing morality coming from chemistry. That’s the only way it happens since you can’t show your god exists or any supernatural phenomena exist. Chrsitians, and every other cultist, have had millennia to show that their claims are true. You have all failed. Your claims that “I haven’t seen this, therefore it isn’t true” can also be applied to the claims your bible makes. *You* didn’t see your god do any of what the bible claims, so by your own argument, no reason to believe in your cult’s nonsense.
Your argument also fails with the garbage you have that if humans create life or consciousness. That life or consciousness *can* be created from intelligence doesn’t mean it *always* is created by intelligence. Nice fail, dear.
It’s also amusing that you are an atheist, sure that other gods than yours don’t exist, so there is rather obviously evidence for you that other gods don’t exist. Happily, our everyday experience shows no evidence for any gods at all, and you simply lie. Like every other theist, you make baseless assertions that your god and only your god exists.
I understand your perspective and your perspective is just like any theist’s is. You all insist each other are wrong and claim you are right. It’s quite a circular firing squad.
LikeLike
Hello again,
You said: “Your claims that “I haven’t seen this, therefore it isn’t true”…”
This isn’t my argument. What I stated in the first paragraph is that I can’t fathom….
And then I said: “Feel free to share with me…” how these things can be from an atheistic perspective and at the same time asked you: “Where in anyone’s experience (atheist or theist alike) do we find these things happening like life from non life. We don’t! Atheists claim life came from non life, and theists don’t hold to this position. The theist’s position is consistent with our observations, whereas atheism is not.
Then, I mentioned that even if we were to create life in a lab, this took prior life to do so, which would further demonstrate the position of the theist and not the atheist.
So all your conclusions do not apply as you did not understand my argument. You were refuting a straw man. Hopefully, this makes more sense. Maybe it is a bad argument, but at least you may better understand it now to expose it as a bad argument.
Now, I am going to try to expose a flaw in your argument.
You said: “Unsurprisingly, you cultists can’t agree on what this supposed “moral agent” even wants as morality, and you can’t agree on what is “right” or “wrong”. Poof goes your lies about “objective morality.”
The flaw I see in this reasoning is that if a category of people (say, those who believe objective morality must have a moral agent) can’t agree on what the moral agent deems moral dosn’t follow that morality is not objective. It could be some in that category are wrong and some are right, and it doesn’t mean all of them are wrong.
If what you argue is the case then I can use this reasoning to conclude that consciousness can’t come from matter since consciousness scientist who study this area and hold to this position can’t agree on what consciousness even is or how exactly matter produces consciousness. And so “poof goes” the “lie” of consciousness from matter. If that doesn’t follow for you, then you ought to see why your own argument against “objective morality” doesn’t follow.
Besides, for something to be “objective” doesn’t require consensus or else it wouldn’t be objective! Something that is objectively true is objectively true whether a majority agree on it or not!
Again, your argument fails in my view on many different things, but I could be wrong, and I’m sure you are going to try to point this out.
You said: “That life or consciousness *can* be created from intelligence doesn’t mean it *always* is created by intelligence.” Never claimed it couldn’t, but only that this would only prove that “life or consciousness can be created from intelligence”! That’s it! It doesn’t logically follow that non intelligence created life! This is very basic logic, and that is all I’m saying. I’m just stating the obvious. The obvious is consistent with theistic beliefs but is actually contradictory to atheistic beliefs.
The headline when this occurs should read: intelligent life creates intelligent life in a lab! That’s it. All else would be conjecture. Therefore, I would argue that this success would only support theism and not support atheism. Now, if the headline were to read: non intelligent life creates intelligent life in a lab, then that would be an observation that would support atheism!
P.S. I’m not sure if all atheists believe life came from non life, but it seems you do. I heard ideas about aliens or maybe life just always was or it depends on how we define life and some I assume argue for a different models of life sort of speak but if all atheist can’t agree on this then guess what: according to your own reasoning I should dismiss atheism for the same reason you dismiss theism. In your reasoning, you seem to require complete agreement among theists in order for theism to be true, but don’t tell me you got complete agreement amongst atheists!
So, you hold to a self-refuting position. I could be wrong, but it seems so to me thus far, or at least that is what I am arguing for now till you can show me otherwise!
Take care
LikeLike
You claiming you haven’t seen something or you can’t understand something and thus things don’t exist are the same.
As usual, you retreat back into god of the gaps arguments, TJ. You have yet to show your god merely exist or that it has created anything at all. You have no research and creationists can’t even convince each other about their nonsense. That we don’t see life forming all of the time, right now, simply indicates that the conditions aren’t right for it, and that’s what research is for, to show what those conditions are.
Curious how you have no observations that your god merely exists, so your claims about what we see being consistent with observations are false. If we create life in a lab, yep, we know intelligence can create life in a lab. That tells us nothing about what created life in the first place.
You are a typically ignorant Christian with no critical thinking skills. And nice to see you unable to show any “strawman” at all.
Yep, you tried and no surprise at all that your attempts fail miserably. Funny how you can’t show that morality is objective nor show a source for that morality. There is no need for any of theist claims to be right. They can be *all* wrong. Again, your lack of critical thinking skills is revealed.
Unsurprisingly, you also fail yet again since the argument isn’t between scientists to determine what consciousness is and where it comes from, it is between scientists and ignorant cultists like yourself. Scientists have evidence for their claims, even if these claims differ. Theists have nothing.
Still waiting for that objective morality, TJ. Where is it? Objectivity doesn’t require consensus, but it does require evidence that it exists. You have nothing, yet again.
It’s great when christians try to lie and claim that they didn’t claim that life can only come from their imaginary friend. You have claimed it can’t come from non-life, and yet you have no evidence to support that, and for your lies to work, humans can’t do any more research ever.
There are no facts to base any logic on, so your baseless nonsense fails yet again. You state a baseless bit of nonsense, not the “obvious”.
That you would argue incoherently isn’t surprising at all. That life created in the lab somehow proves that life can only be created by intelligence is again a lie from you.
You again show your typical ignorance with your “I’m not sure if all atheists believe…” nonsense. No evidence for aliens being involved. No evidence for whatever you want to invent as a “different models of life”. So just like your cult, if there is no evidence for your claims, there is no reason to accept them as true. You seem unable to grasp that your baseless lies aren’t equal to the evidence based science that is being performed.
Nope, no “self-refuting position” at all, just an ignorant Christian who has no evidence for his claims.
LikeLike
I stick by my posts above. But I would like to ask you a question:
If scientists were to create life in a lab, would that be consistent with one’s belief that an intelligent being created life or one’s belief that non intelligent random chance created life?
LikeLike
yep, you stick by your lies. So? Still no evidence for your imaginary friend, and you are fraud per your own silly bible.
it’s sweet to see incompetent cultists whine that their lies and fallacies are called out. Yes, dear, the god of the gaps argument is a fallacy, since it depends on an assumption that cannot be shown to be true.
if scientists were to create life in the lab, it would be evidence for the fact that humans can create life in the lab. It has nothing to say about if life can be created in other manners or if a god is needed or not.
LikeLike
“If scientists were to create life in the lab, it would be evidence for the fact that humans can create life in the lab” and I will just add that a scientist is an intelligent being and so I would say the life created in the lab was a result of intelligence and not random chance processes.
This is consistent with every theistic view of creation that I am aware of, and definitely Christian theism. This is not consistent with every atheistic view of how life was created by random natural processes that I’m aware of and definitely not your form of atheism as far as I can tell.
Take care…
LikeLike
oh dear, back again?
Again, still no evidence for any gods and that it matches your religious claims doesn’t make your religions true.
You again seem to think that your arguments from popularity fallacies work and they fail every single time. To return to the same lies is quite the dog returning to its vomit.
LikeLike