God & the Fairy Tree

I don't blame you. I shared very similar feelings at one point in time. No matter how we slice it. The laws which we live by bind us to deal with the God's claim to creation as it were. Simply put, if someone claimed to do something then the result is the evidence of the action. We can argue until the cows come home about how it doesn't make sense because we cannot see beyond existence. However, when all is said and done, the claim stands to reason.One day, I believe we will have the capacity to challenge God's claim to creation. Until then, it is what it is. Edited by pbee, : No reason given.

I claim no evidence as to whether God loves you or not. I suspect she doesn't though.However there is a vast array of evidence that we and the physical world around us were formed by natural processes. Unlike love these things are tangible, measurable and can be validated by science.The love of God is frankly neither here nor there when evaluating how the physical world was formed.
Your attempt to merge the unmergable is just yet another avoidenace tactic in presenting any tangible evidence.

Emotions are subjective. Apples and oranges. And where, exactly, is this "permit?" Are you referring to the Bible? We have numerous threads already that would rip that idea to shreds. And how would science validate it? Please, show what science would need to do to support or falsify the hypothesis that the universe was created. Even if it is beyond our means at the moment.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Yes, you are definitely on the list! - Are you going to write a book also? If so, I can't wait to read it.

Soon as I get off my vacation. Creating the universe was pretty tough, and I just did it last week. I'll be sure to not write it myself, though - I'll have a bunch of other people write it for me. But I won't dictate most of it, either. I'll let them write whatever they want. And then I'll let another group of people peice together who wrote what, and which writings get put into the "official" collection. And then I'll let other groups make different "official" collections.And then I'll laugh. For a long, long time.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Theres another person, calls himself YHWH, who made the same claim, it was recorded over 3000 yrs ago. Not calling you a liar or anything but... Edited by pbee, : typo

Natural, unnatural, this has no bearing on the claim or evidence of the claim. Very good. The comment was not a lesson in love but a illustration used to demonstrate the effectiveness of the appropriate tool and method for the job. I know nothing of this argument. However the record of this claim has proven its age and authenticity. it would be senseless to try and determine how we could one day have the capacity to map out our precise origin. However, already we are on to several promising theories which support alternate realms and parallel universes. It looks as though we are headed in that direction.

Oh, yeah, that reminds me: you offered to demonstrate how the Miller/Urey experiment is a farce. Well, we've bumped an appropriate thread for you.By the way, do you know Rob?

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I was unaware of that, although I do remember that discussion. I'll look into it. - thx

Except I created everyting last week, with the appearance of age - including the Bible. I made all that stuff up because I wanted some amusement, and the fundies make me laugh.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

But the topic of this thread involves obective facts, not subjective truths. Love is irrelevant to any of our discussions. Age, certainly. Its "authenticity," however, is riddled with inaccuracies, self-contradictions, and outright fantasy. Objective evidence shows, for instance, tha the worls was NOT created in 6 days, that there was no mass Exodus from Egypt, that there was certainly no Great Flood, etc. You're the one who claimed we would have the ability to test it. If you have no idea what test, even disregarding current or potential future capabilities, would support or falsify your claim, then your claim is meaningless.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Fascinating, having researched the Leningrad Codex several years ago, I have not come across any of the issues you mention in your response. Perhaps you would do better with an older more direct source to evaluate. I will restate my comment to help clarify, "I believe, that someday, we will have the capacity to validate God's claim to creation."

Sorry but that is evidence of nothing except that we exist. Sorry but that is irrelevant. It carries no more weight than the claim of anyone else. It is simply an unsupported assertion by you so far.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I know what your feeling and unfortunately, the statement is already in its simplest form. We can however, deny the claim. But denying the result of creation(evidence) is not an option since we already acknowledge we exist.When we do try to elude this claim, we are left with this level of reasoning. - Sorry but that is evidence of nothing except that we exist. Far greater people have struggled with this issue for far longer than we will ever know. To date they have found no way to preclude this statement. Why would I try to support a claim which I have no implications with?

Prove that we were created. Prove that we are not the result of completely natural causes. No one is denying anything yet - you haven't provided any evidence for us to deny. "Greater people?" Right. Because the person making an argument is totally relevant to the merits of the argument.You're dodging the question again. You still have not supported your claim. Do so or retract.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.