bindex:


What is this nonsense? When I say motion I mean motion of Moving from place to place as your bible puts it not rotational motion, every body with that went through secondary school and did a little geography knows that the sun rotates around its axis. That is very different from saying that the sun "hurries back to where it rises" how does the sun "hurry" back to where it rises?

Understand what shit? by the way what life does the spirit give?


Does the sun "hasten to where it arose"? use your wise understanding to explain this "hasten to the place where it arose" for me. Do that or forever keep shut.

Am Alone:

H3LLO DUMI3!


Now you need to go back to school, spend the rest of your life there
And when you get to understand that 'Motion' is not equal to 'rotational motion' the you can come back


Who they mess cares! about what you meant when you say motion?!
Now go back to school and lear how to be more specific with words!

My friend go back to school!

WHO ARE YOU TO TELL ME THAT THERE IS NO [B]GOD?![/B]

3VOLUTIONARY IDIOT!

KAG:

Well, let's first start with the assertion that A can analyse and define her beliefs within the concepts of scientific knowledge, etc. I honestly doubt that's an accurate assessment of the theist's position in regards to gods. The allure - and flaw - of gods is that when scientific evidence that is falsifiable (c.f. empirical evidence) is asked of or for them, the theist is able to reside or hide behind the claim that his or her god is beyond the scope of humanity; essentially, that the god or gods are transcendental - sometimes, even impossibly beyond transcendent. It all belies what you claim.

In any case, on to B. What is the scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods? There isn't any per se. What can be pointed to instead is the existence of alternative, empirically based theories and concepts that could help us understand the existence of humans sans gods. With that B doesn't need to accept "Goddidit" as a viable reason for her existence.

As far as the intellectual goes, though, there are several arguments - some more satisfactory than others. The problem of evil is a firm favourite for many when informed of the supposed existence of an omni-max deity like the Christian one, thus one can present the argument so neatly summed up by Archibald McLeish in JB: "If God is God, he is not good/ If God is good, he is not God/ Take the even, take the odd"

For me, since simply pointing out I just don't believe any gods exist is enough for most people, I'm more content with just pointing out the glaring contradictions in the characteristics and actions of their gods, and the inanity in the dogmas they espouse. For instance, then, to use the Christian god again, the inherent philosophical contradiction in presenting YHVH as both immediately immanent and transcendental is one to which I may point.

noetic2:

Do u understand my question at all?

According to u, there is no scientific evidence to buttress the non-existence of GOD notion, dont u consider this notion as guilty as the "religions " atheism antagonises?
So for the sake of living in denial, without recourse to reason, logic, scientific experimentation, research, analogy . . . . . .  u simply deny the existence of GOD.Ur

noetic2:

Do u understand my question at all?

Well, let's first start with the assertion that A can analyse and define her beliefs within the concepts of scientific knowledge, etc. I honestly doubt that's an accurate assessment of the theist's position in regards to gods. The allure - and flaw - of gods is that when scientific evidence that is falsifiable (c.f. empirical evidence) is asked of or for them, the theist is able to reside or hide behind the claim that his or her god is beyond the scope of humanity; essentially, that the god or gods are transcendental - sometimes, even impossibly beyond transcendent. It all belies what you claim.

In any case, on to B. What is the scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods? There isn't any per se. What can be pointed to instead is the existence of alternative, empirically based theories and concepts that could help us understand the existence of humans sans gods. With that B doesn't need to accept "Goddidit" as a viable reason for her existence.

According to u, there is no scientific evidence to buttress the non-existence of GOD notion, dont u consider this notion as guilty as the "religions " atheism antagonises?
So for the sake of living in denial, without recourse to reason, logic, scientific experimentation, research, analogy . . . . . .  u simply deny the existence of GOD.

As far as the intellectual goes, though, there are several arguments - some more satisfactory than others. The problem of evil is a firm favourite for many when informed of the supposed existence of an omni-max deity like the Christian one, thus one can present the argument so neatly summed up by Archibald McLeish in JB: "If God is God, he is not good/ If God is good, he is not God/ Take the even, take the odd"

Ur argument cannot be regarded as an intellectual basis for the non-existence of GOD. simply because it is logically one-way traffic.
if ur definition of goodness, mercy, kindness and other xterics of GOD, does not conform with the xtian God, how exactly does that negate HIS existence?

what does it mean to be good? and who do understand to be GOD?

For me, since simply pointing out I just don't believe any gods exist is enough for most people, I'm more content with just pointing out the glaring contradictions in the characteristics and actions of their gods, and the inanity in the dogmas they espouse. For instance, then, to use the Christian god again, the inherent philosophical contradiction in presenting YHVH as both immediately immanent and transcendental is one to which I may point.

This is a better explanation for atheism. Denying the existence of GOD, not on a scientific or intellectual, logical or rational basis, perhaps on the basis of inherent bitterness triggered by hate.

Mr A believes that there is a living and existing GOD.
Mr B believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD.

Both Mr A and B must be able to analyse and define their beliefs, within the concepts of scientific knowledge, intelectualism and rationality.

oyinda.:


If you happen to be Mr A, you're setting yourself up. 

Hebrew 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

how can u then define faith scientifically and rationally? that's impossible.

sometimes I feel that arguing religion can be very futile. whether between a christian and atheist or between a buddhist and muslim.

Mr A believes that there is a living and existing GOD.
Mr B believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD.

Both Mr A and B must be able to analyse and define their beliefs, within the concepts of scientific knowledge, intelectualism and rationality.

To the advocates of Mr B's postulation, I ask: what is the scientific evidence for the non-existence of GOD?

what is the intellectual evidence for the non-existence of GOD?

OLAADEGBU:

_{Quote from: C-NOETIC on May 28, 2009, 10:58 PM}


Advocates Mr. A can now use empirrical methods to show the evidences of the existence of the Creator God, and this has been done in many ways on this forum.  The use of the design argument, ontological, information as well as scientific arguments have been used as evidence that there have to be a Creator God.  The ball is now in the court of the advocates of Mr B who are absolutely sure that there is no God to give us the evidences they have instead of beating about the bush.

toneyb:

It has never been done, you can show the empirical evidence mind you what we see around is no evidence for any supreme being rather it is only an evidence of vision and the environment. Where are the scientific arguments you keep trumpeting again and again with out providing them as a support.

OLAADEGBU:

You would have seen them if not for your evolutionary glasses. It is a two way game. Advocates of Mr B are challenged to give their own evidences it is only after that would we give our own. As a friend said you don't have the monopoly to asking questions only and not giving answers in return.

toneyb:

Actually I never really ask you guys any question because I know that you have no answers to any questions, I only wait for you to make an assertion like science proves the existence of your god then I ask you to provide evidence for your assertions, which you have never been able to do.

OLAADEGBU:

The poster has asked his questions, how many pages are we now and we are still expecting you (Advocates of Mr B) to give their evidences, if you don't have any why not say so.

OLAADEGBU:

_{Quote from: C-NOETIC on May 28, 2009, 10:58 PM}
There are at least 3 types of methods at proving facts or truths namely; scientifically, mathematically or experientially.  Both postulations have presuppositions, that is, starting points.  This is what you assume or believe to be true from the onset.

Advocates of Mr A's postulation can only prove its presupposition by personal experiences.  That is, by faith in God's Word and by the experiences of salvation when they receive Jesus into their lives and put on Jesus Christ as one would put his trust on a parachute if and when one is about to take a jump from an airplane.  You cannot expect to use this method (experience) to prove a chemical equation or vice versa.  You cannot prove to me empirically, how you kissed your wife (if you are married, and married to the opposite sex), if you proceed to explain the microbes that exchanged your mouths then the point would have been defeated because that would not explain the experiences you are trying to import.  As they say the taste of the pudding is in the eating (I hope I got that right).

Advocates Mr. A can now use empirical methods to show the evidences of the existence of the Creator God, and this has been done in many ways on this forum.  The use of the design argument, ontological, information as well as scientific arguments have been used as evidence that there have to be a Creator God. 

The ball is now in the court of the advocates of Mr B who are absolutely sure that there is no God to give us the evidences they have instead of beating about the bush.

noetic2:

I could not have said this better.

The main issue has always been atheist's refusal to defend their beliefs. None of them has attempted to answer the questions raised.

Mr A believes that there is a living and existing GOD.
Mr B believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD.

Both Mr A and B must be able to analyse and define their beliefs, within the concepts of scientific knowledge, intelectualism and rationality.

toneyb:

I am not here to provide any evidence because I have non but I am here to examine your own claim of "evidence" and see how you what we see around supports it.

OLAADEGBU:

It was Thomas Edison that said "We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything." And when the Atheists come here to assert with absolute certainty that there is no God, they would have no doubt confirmed the biblical saying in Psalm 14:1 that says:

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

So don't complain when someone calls you a fool who cannot see the illogical and unreasonable presupposition that you have assumed.

toneyb:

Sure we don't know a millionth of one percent about anything that just the way that your bible writers who did not know that rainbow was a refraction of sunlight on water droplets tagged it a covenant between them and their tribal god. I believe that if you go through the koran of the muslims you will see where it also talks about fools saying that Allah does not exist, so you are a fool for saying that Allah does not exist how about that.

OLAADEGBU:

Leave the Bible, Qur'an, Allah and muslims out of this, don't divert the thread just answer the questions posed by the poster and if you have nothing to contribute it will be wise to observe from the sidelines you might learn a thing or two that way.

KAG:

Yes, and I then proceded to give a detailed response to both its premise and fallacies.


Not quite. AAccording to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".

I don't think you understand what the terms "intelectual" and "logical" mean. Also, even if for some bizarre reason my definition of goodness, mercy, etc. are rejected out hand, I can simply turn to the book Christians call the book of their god and show that their god lacks several of the characteristics as defined or implied in said book.
why should the bible be the criteria for defining these characteristics?

If we were to be blind to everything else, but came across John 4:8 ". . . God is love" and then realised that Paul gives a definition of what it means to love in 1st Corinthians 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

. . .then, anyone that asks that we believe ina literal reading of the Bible has to logicallly, intellectually accept that the Judeo-Christian god isn't love. It (the Christian's god) isn't good, if love is what Paul says it is.

Good? Good is an arbitrary term to define things that we perceive to be favourable to us and the people we love or with whom we empathise. The Christian god? I only understand it from what Christian tradition and the Old Testament have claimed on its behalf. That god, if it existed, would be one of the most schizophrenic entities in existence.
This is a better explanation for atheism. Denying the existence of GOD, not on a scientific or intellectual, logical or rational basis, perhaps on the basis of inherent bitterness triggered by hate.

You'd make a lousy psychologist. Don't quit your day job. It has nothing to do with any supposed "inherent bitterness triggered by hate", and more to do with I don't see gods existing. The graves some think they are buried are still generally fresh mounds, so I suppose most don't realise the gods are gone.

noetic2:

Yes, and I then proceded to give a detailed response to both its premise and fallacies.


Not quite. AAccording to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".

Please produce these "scientific evidences" . . .

I don't think you understand what the terms "intelectual" and "logical" mean. Also, even if for some bizarre reason my definition of goodness, mercy, etc. are rejected out hand, I can simply turn to the book Christians call the book of their god and show that their god lacks several of the characteristics as defined or implied in said book.


If we were to be blind to everything else, but came across John 4:8 ". . . God is love" and then realised that Paul gives a definition of what it means to love in 1st Corinthians 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

. . .then, anyone that asks that we believe ina literal reading of the Bible has to logicallly, intellectually accept that the Judeo-Christian god isn't love. It (the Christian's god) isn't good, if love is what Paul says it is.

Good? Good is an arbitrary term to define things that we perceive to be favourable to us and the people we love or with whom we empathise. The Christian god? I only understand it from what Christian tradition and the Old Testament have claimed on its behalf. That god, if it existed, would be one of the most schizophrenic entities in existence.

I have a problem with ur major inconsistencies. In one breadth, the bible is a fairytale, and now u are quoting out of it to justify ur misinformed notions. Define ur meaning of good, love and other xterics. . .  explain ur understanding of GOD (if u have any). . .then reconcile the meaning of these xterics to ur understanding of GOD.

You'd make a lousy psychologist. Don't quit your day job. It has nothing to do with any supposed "inherent bitterness triggered by hate", and more to do with I don't see gods existing. The graves some think they are buried are still generally fresh mounds, so I suppose most don't realise the gods are gone.

EVIDENCE ?

KAG:

Seriously? Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I gave one example against the notion of Zeus's powers, and by default his existence; and another that shakes the Mormon faith and, also by default, its god. Unless, of course, you meant you would like to know the scientific discoveries that put paid to Zeus the hurler of lightning and the veracity of the Mormon book. For lightning go to any science book. For genetics and the Mormon book, see here: http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html

KAG:

On the chance that you meant is you'd like some more, and at the risk of sidetracking this thread (amongst other worries that I won't mention just yet), I'll go ahead and add to my initial examples.

First, in Der Spiegel, discussing the universe, its origins and characteristics, Prof. Hawking sums up what has been discovered through the sciences that deal with the universe:

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide on how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary"

KAG:

What scientific theories could possibly make gods unnecessary in the question of the existence of the universe. Well the foremost is the Big Bang with Inflation theory. I won't go into details, but suffice to say that although the Big Bang theory isn't a foundation for atheism, it may be used to buttress it.

KAG:

You asked: "why should the bible be the criteria for defining these characteristics?" The simplest answer is because you wrote this: "if ur definition of goodness, mercy, kindness and other xterics of GOD, does not conform with the xtian God, how exactly does that negate HIS existence?"

KAG:

I minimised the chances of games of semantics and intellectual dishonesty by just using the Bible as the standard for understanding the meaning of those words where it necessarily gives or implies meaning.

KAG:

You claim that for me "In one breadth [sic], the bible is a fairytale" Can you show me where I've said the Bible is a fairy tale? Anyway, since I know you won't find an example of that, I'll get to the point. The Bible itself isn't a fairy tale. However, along with some history, morals and teachings, it also contains many myths and allegories. Some fabrications, too, probably.

KAG:

Further, I don't have to define those words. It's easier to point to parts of the Bible that utilise or define the words. If on the one hand something is claimed of the god of the Bible, and on the other the Bible shows a contradiction, then we are still following what is presented in the book. By that token, if, as I pointed out, 1st John tells us "God is love", Paul defines love in 1st Corinthians, and the god of the Bible contravenes most of those characteristics of love, then you have a big, glaring contradiction. One that belies, and potentially falsifies the veracity of the Bible.

Let me reiterate. It is by using the Bible's definitions and implications, if for no other reason than to avoid a semantics game, that the contradictions appear in their most glaring. In that, I needn't use a dictionary, as your book suffices.

KAG:

Um, what? Evidence that I don't see gods existing?

"At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?"

- A. Flew

OLAADEGBU:

Seriously? Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I gave one example against the notion of Zeus's powers, and by default his existence; and another that shakes the Mormon faith and, also by default, its god. Unless, of course, you meant you would like to know the scientific discoveries that put paid to Zeus the hurler of lightning and the veracity of the Mormon book. For lightning go to any science book. For genetics and the Mormon book, see here: http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html

These are all semantics and diversionary tactics. Can you please answer the question and give us your scientific evidence that proves that there is no God and stop beating about the bush.

On the chance that you meant is you'd like some more, and at the risk of sidetracking this thread (amongst other worries that I won't mention just yet), I'll go ahead and add to my initial examples.

First, in Der Spiegel, discussing the universe, its origins and characteristics, Prof. Hawking sums up what has been discovered through the sciences that deal with the universe:

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide on how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary"

Prof. Hawking summed up in his own opinion what has been discovered but do you know who originated the scientific laws that was discovered and formulated by man in the first place?

What scientific theories could possibly make gods unnecessary in the question of the existence of the universe. Well the foremost is the Big Bang with Inflation theory. I won't go into details, but suffice to say that although the Big Bang theory isn't a foundation for atheism, it may be used to buttress it.

You evolutionists have avoided the big bang theory because you know how ridiculous it has panned out to be but that is the foundation that you base your other theories like the evolutionary theory on. Tell us what caused the big bang at the very beginning? Was that thing eternal, that is, has it always existed? Your guess is as good as mine.

You asked: "why should the bible be the criteria for defining these characteristics?" The simplest answer is because you wrote this: "if ur definition of goodness, mercy, kindness and other xterics of GOD, does not conform with the xtian God, how exactly does that negate HIS existence?"

Can you for once leave the Bible (that you don't understand or believe in) out of this and explain to us your evidence of the non existence of God?

I minimised the chances of games of semantics and intellectual dishonesty by just using the Bible as the standard for understanding the meaning of those words where it necessarily gives or implies meaning.

[/quote]

Minimised the chances of games of semantics and intellectual dishonesty, etc? To a certain extent, yes, I have done much to the effect of minimising.

[quote]You claim that for me "In one breadth [sic], the bible is a fairytale" Can you show me where I've said the Bible is a fairy tale? Anyway, since I know you won't find an example of that, I'll get to the point. The Bible itself isn't a fairy tale. However, along with some history, morals and teachings, it also contains many myths and allegories. Some fabrications, too, probably.

This is your intellectual dishonesty showing up here, we all know what you stand for so there is no point playing your game of semantics again.

All the poster was asking was for the advocates of Mr B's postulation to give their scientific evidence of what they believe and here you are running a commentary on the Bible that confuses you.

How do you expect to see the existence of God, with those evolutionistic spectacles? If there is no God that we claim that created the universe, explain to us the origin of the universe, how something came out of nothing that proves that there is no need for God.

KAG:

These are all semantics and diversionary tactics. Can you please answer the question and give us your scientific evidence that proves that there is no God and stop beating about the bush.

Um, what? How exactly are they semantics and diversionary tactics? I didn't even going into definitions or anything of the sort, so I'm puzzled at the suugestion that any of that has to do with semantics. Do you know what semantics mean?

In any case, since I'm already indulging you, I suppose it's only proper that I give you the context of this line of discussion, since you somehow failed to read it.

After I pointed out that,

'According to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".'

the op asked yet again for scientific evidence. As you can see there were no diversions or semantics. Further, I responded squarely to what was in the op and subsequent responses. Now you do the same.
Prof. Hawking summed up in his own opinion what has been discovered but do you know who originated the scientific laws that was discovered and formulated by man in the first place?

The scientifc laws were created by humans. What those laws describe, however, as implied in the quote from Hawking, do not need gods to be operational. Depending on the law or theory in question, full or partial understanding of how and what causes them to occur may be decipherable.

To reiterate, the scientifc discoveries are not primary evidence against gods. They do, however, buttress arguments against the need for gods. Essentially, "goddidit" began its slow march towards death with the onset of modern science.
You evolutionists have avoided the big bang theory because you know how ridiculous it has panned out to be but that is the foundation that you base your other theories like the evolutionary theory on. Tell us what caused the big bang at the very beginning? Was that thing eternal, that is, has it always existed? Your guess is as good as mine.

Well, first, you're both and wrong and lying. You're wrong to imply that acceptance of the Big Bang theory is analogous to acceptance of the theory of evolution. Two different theories; two different fields. And you're lying when you imply that I, at the very least, have avoided the Big Bang theory. Far from it, and you know it.

If you want me to address the Big Bang theory with you, then you have to acknowledge all the other times I've done that, particularly the ones with you participating. That's all you have to do. Repent from your lie, and show that you remember at least a little tidbit of my other posts on the subject.
Can you for once leave the Bible (that you don't understand or believe in) out of this and explain to us your evidence of the non existence of God?

No, I can't leave the Bible out of this. That you ignore that the Bible in itself indicates the falsity of the claims on the behalf of the Christian god, is telling.
As if you have done anything else but this.This is your intellectual dishonesty showing up here, we all know what you stand for so there is no point playing your game of semantics again.

You use words to which you don't seem to know their meaning. Anyway, my point stands, irrespective of what you think I stand for. The Bible is what I said it is.

Yeah, I'm bored already. If you hade read the op, you'd have realised that the poster also asked for an intellectual based response to the non-existence of gods. Yeah, that's where inherent contradictions come into play. That's where the Christian's god and love have a conflict if the Bible is used as our source. Also, if you had bothered to read all of my posts rather than trying to give the semblance of response with drivel (that also tells me something about the effect the parts you may have read are having), you'd have seen how I address both the scientific and the, for a lack of a better word, the intellectual aspects of disbelieving that gods exist.

I should also add here that if you had really thought that I was confused about what 1st John and 1st Corinthians are saying, you'd have been eager - over-eager, in fact - to show where I went wrong in my analysis. As it stands, we both know that it isn't me that is confused about what those verses say.

Finally, as to the Big Bang. See an earlier part of this post. Ciao.

noetic2:

Am I the only one that cant see this EVIDENCE of yours? Where is ur scientific evidence?

noetic2:




are u this frustrated . . .where is ur scientific evidence?

noetic2:




are u this frustrated . .  .where is ur scientific evidence?   

KAG:

Um, what? How exactly are they semantics and diversionary tactics? I didn't even going into definitions or anything of the sort, so I'm puzzled at the suugestion that any of that has to do with semantics. Do you know what semantics mean?

KAG:

'According to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".'

KAG:

the op asked yet again for scientific evidence. As you can see there were no diversions or semantics. Further, I responded squarely to what was in the op and subsequent responses. Now you do the same.
Prof. Hawking summed up in his own opinion what has been discovered but do you know who originated the scientific laws that was discovered and formulated by man in the first place?

KAG:

The scientifc laws were created by humans. What those laws describe, however, as implied in the quote from Hawking, do not need gods to be operational. Depending on the law or theory in question, full or partial understanding of how and what causes them to occur may be decipherable.

KAG:

To reiterate, the scientifc discoveries are not primary evidence against gods. They do, however, buttress arguments against the need for gods. Essentially, "goddidit" began its slow march towards death with the onset of modern science.

KAG:

Well, first, you're both and wrong and lying. You're wrong to imply that acceptance of the Big Bang theory is analogous to acceptance of the theory of evolution. Two different theories; two different fields. And you're lying when you imply that I, at the very least, have avoided the Big Bang theory. Far from it, and you know it.

KAG:

If you want me to address the Big Bang theory with you, then you have to acknowledge all the other times I've done that, particularly the ones with you participating. That's all you have to do. Repent from your lie, and show that you remember at least a little tidbit of my other posts on the subject.

KAG:

No, I can't leave the Bible out of this. That you ignore that the Bible in itself indicates the falsity of the claims on the behalf of the Christian god, is telling.
As if you have done anything else but this.This is your intellectual dishonesty showing up here, we all know what you stand for so there is no point playing your game of semantics again.

KAG:

You use words to which you don't seem to know their meaning. Anyway, my point stands, irrespective of what you think I stand for. The Bible is what I said it is.

KAG:

Yeah, I'm bored already. If you hade read the op, you'd have realised that the poster also asked for an intellectual based response to the non-existence of gods. Yeah, that's where inherent contradictions come into play. That's where the Christian's god and love have a conflict if the Bible is used as our source. Also, if you had bothered to read all of my posts rather than trying to give the semblance of response with drivel (that also tells me something about the effect the parts you may have read are having), you'd have seen how I address both the scientific and the, for a lack of a better word, the intellectual aspects of disbelieving that gods exist.

KAG:

I should also add here that if you had really thought that I was confused about what 1st John and 1st Corinthians are saying, you'd have been eager - over-eager, in fact - to show where I went wrong in my analysis. As it stands, we both know that it isn't me that is confused about what those verses say.

KAG:

Finally, as to the Big Bang. See an earlier part of this post. Ciao.

OLAADEGBU:

If you can just spare us the play of words and go straight to answering the question of the poster, it is not rocket science.

'According to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".'

If you cannot give us your scientific evidence then give us the scientific evidence used to buttress your point without trying to explain the Bible that you have no idea of. The Op asked for your intellectual evidence that disproves the existence of God and not what happens to an cult religious group.

There is nowhere that you answered the question. Prof. Hawking gave his own opinion and I told you that all the laws of the universe such as the laws of gravity, physics and mathematics was originated by God. Man discovered these laws and named them accordingly, would you say that a man who found a magnificient domicile in the desert not occupied by anyone suddenly claim that he discovered it therefore there was no need for there to be a builder? A sensible person would realise that the building was built by an intelligent designer or builder and would not jump to the foolish conclusion that because he discovered it no man was ever built it or occupied it before.

Even Prof. Hawkings would not be so foolish to jump to such conclusions, read what he had to say in the quote below:

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." -- Stephen Hawking

I strongly disagree. The scientific discoveries are the very evidences of an infinite intelligent Creator who originated the laws that has kept the universe in order; the planets on their orbits in their courses and why the earth has not crashed into other planets etc. Since the discovery of the laws of gravity can you tell me how you believed it evolved?

When I said you evolutionists I meant you atheistic evolutionists collectively are fund of dropping the issue of the big bang like hot potatoes by claiming that it has nothing to do with your theory of evolution. All your theories depend on your assumption on the origin of the universe and the origin of life to which none of you could ascertain. I must admit that it is only you that has taken up the challenge to prove the origin of the universe in another thread which was unconvincing. So if you are so convinced the Op wants you to produce your evidence here why the universe could exist without the existence of the Creator God. As for lying we know that you have no obligation to tell truth as long as you are not going to benefit from it, just as you deceived a few others as to your real gender when you gave the impression that you were a female before you where found out for what you are.

If you want me to address the Big Bang theory with you, then you have to acknowledge all the other times I've done that, particularly the ones with you participating. That's all you have to do. Repent from your lie, and show that you remember at least a little tidbit of my other posts on the subject.

I have not lied as explained above and you do not have to explain the big bang to me, all the poster is asking from you is to answer his question as an advocate of Mr B's postulation without beating about the bush.

There is no point discussing what you consider as a fairytale as that would defeat its purpose. The poster is not asking for your warped understanding and explanation of the Bible that you rarely understand because of your evolutionistic worldview that distorts your understanding. For you to understand it you will have to come down from your high horse of pride and humble yourself then you might learn a thing or two.

If you insist on using semantics on the word of God that you don't believe then you are on your own.

Yeah, I'm bored already. If you hade read the op, you'd have realised that the poster also asked for an intellectual based response to the non-existence of gods. Yeah, that's where inherent contradictions come into play. That's where the Christian's god and love have a conflict if the Bible is used as our source. Also, if you had bothered to read all of my posts rather than trying to give the semblance of response with drivel (that also tells me something about the effect the parts you may have read are having), you'd have seen how I address both the scientific and the, for a lack of a better word, the intellectual aspects of disbelieving that gods exist.

Only you and your deluded evolutionists can see where you have provided the answers to the questions. An advise is to learn how to summarise your stories in future.

I should also add here that if you had really thought that I was confused about what 1st John and 1st Corinthians are saying, you'd have been eager - over-eager, in fact - to show where I went wrong in my analysis. As it stands, we both know that it isn't me that is confused about what those verses say.

The Bible is not like your evolution textbook that you read, it is a spiritual book where the Almighty Infinite God communicates and contacts with the finite men and women that are humble enough to admit that they are ignorant enough to learn from Him.

Where you there? what did it originate from? For something to go bang it must have matter to explode, where did this matter come from originally? Answering this you might bail out your fellow atheists who have driven themselves into a rut.