Complexity? Really?

I asked you specifically about this:

Could that be true? I really won’t respond to replies that take my question to you and raise fifty questions for me.

Did God create the universe, yes or no and what is your argument?

I have been doing that, you’ve asserted several times that there is no evidence for God. I asked how you can be so sure that some thing or other is not evidence, what do you look for that tells you it’s not evidence and so on, all you do is respond with further questions and personal insults.

I even started a dedicated thread where you eagerly want to participate but refuse to answer the question.

While ignoring my examples that contradict your assertion, to produce a straw man i made no claims about. Try again…with some integrity.

Google the word atheist, this should clear that question up for you. If you have some objective evidence for any deity, or that it has created anything then present it.

No. I never made that claim.

That’s a lie, I have answered your questions, and though you may find my highlighting the persistent dishonesty in your posts insulting, this does not make it untrue, nor is it ad hominem, and in each case i highlighted your dishonesty with evidence.

No you didn’t go to the thread and show me where you answer the question about how do atheists decide if something is or is not evidence for God.

There is no answer, you’d show me if there was.

Go to the thread and show me where my questions (repeated above) were answered.

When it’s accompanied by other assertions known to be not merely wrong, but fatuous and absurd, as a result of diligent scientific investigation , then that initial assertion can be safely discarded, on the basis that the source is manifestly wrong on testable details. Or did this elementary concept fly past you, in your eagerness to post more mendacious ex recto apologetic fabrications?

Oh, and since cosmological physicists have already set about devising models for the origin of the observable universe in its current form, and tests of those models to determine if they are consonant with observational data, your trite assertions about the supposed “ignorance” of science on this matter are null and void.

But I suspect the relevant scientific papers are yet more primary sources you’ll dishonestly ignore, preferring instead to treat a goat herder mythology uncritically as fact.

Hou have yet to provide genuine evidence that this entity even exists, let alone poofed an entire universe into existence by waving its magic todger about.

Until you succeed in that matter, the above assertion is safely discardable.

Oh, and there’s the little matter of several million peer reviewed scientific papers, documenting in exquisite detail the evidence that testable natural processes are sufficient to explain the vast body of observational data obtained over the past 350 years, and as a corollary, that cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies are superfluous to requirements and irrelevant.

Very well but taken in isolation, do you think it conflicts with any physical observational data?

There are in fact exactly zero naturalistic models for the origin of the laws of nature, the origin of determinism @Calilasseia and if the origin of these has no naturalistic explanation then by extension neither does the presence of the universe.

Nor can there be for the obvious reason that all scientific models/theories implicitly presume that determinism and laws already exist in order for the model to be formulated and the mathematical axioms to be stated.

Your misplaced faith in scientism and attendant misunderstanding of this subject are evident.

In short “science can’t be used to explain science”, quod erat demonstrandum as the saying goes.

What would convince you?

That’s not the statement I issued. Once again, you’re erecting a duplicitous strawman caricature of my actual words.

However, it so happens that the late Stephen Hawking was working on such a model, about which I’ve posted in another thread. So that’s another of your assertions flushed down the toilet.



The only time the word “scientism” enters the discourse here, is when lying mythology fanboys want to misrepresent proper acceptance of evidentially supported postulates as being purportedly “symmetric” with uncritical acceptance of unsupported mythological assertions, which it isn’t. Stop lying.

1 Like

Which God are you referencing? You would have to give me a bit more information about this God thing you are mentioning, and then you would have to demonstrate it was among the possible causes for the creation of the universe. Until you do that, saying ‘yes’ or '‘no’ would be as ignorant an assertion as asking, and then demanding an answer to the question. Your question is every bit as logical as “Did Kevin the Rainbow Farting Unicorn create the universe?” Yes or No? What is your argument?

You do not get to claim the universe is a creation without demonstrating that such things can be created. Do you know of anyone who has ever created a universe? How did a ‘Created Universe’ become a possibility? How would you contrast a created universe with one that is naturally occurring? (How did you rule out a naturally occurring universe?)

Your question is one big “Begging the Question” fallacy. Demonstrate the universe is a creation. Demonstrate your definition of a God is directly tied in some way to that creation.


I’ve said this several times, but just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean we should automatically invoke God.

The Big Bang is the beginning of the current presentation of the Universe . . . which is vastly different from claiming that the Big Bang is the beginning of the Universe.

I will shout–from the 50 yard line of the Superbowl–that science doesn’t know everything.

If, however, we decide to invoke God every time we don’t understand something, then we would still have women dying from childbed fever after giving birth.

Using scientific (as opposed to religious) ideas to understand the origin of the Universe may lead to clean energy from fusion (or antimatter?) or, possibly, a deeper understanding of gravity and/or Unified Field Theory . . . which may allow us to cheat general relativity and create a star drive.

Invoking God accomplishes nothing.


I have answered this several times, and I invite anyone to read the threads and see that I have. I am done wasting time looking back through threads only for you to either hand wave them away, or ignore them completely when I have done so.

I will note however that you have not offered any explanation despite being asked repeatedly to do so, what your OBJECTIVE criteria is for disbelieving all the deities I do, except for one. Again I invite anyone reading, to read the entire discourse if they are minded to see whether this assertion is true.

1 Like

Sufficient objective evidence, as you were told on your first post 7 months ago. Or failing that I asked you present what you thought was your most compelling reason or “evidence” a deity exists outside of the human imagination.

1 Like

Given we have only one example we can objectively scrutinised, I see exactly what you’re saying. I also don’t accept that complexity infers design, sufficient objective evidence is what demonstrates design, and the unerring fact that designed things don’t occur naturally. It’s also a dishonest argument, as theists who use it believe everything is designed, so complexity is a false criteria they use because they assume complex things are harder to understand, and if you don’t understand something then humans have always had a propensity to invoked superstition.

1 Like

No he wasn’t, if you care to challenge me on this feel free.

1 Like

I agree.

I agree.

What leads you that conclusion?

1 Like


You make this so easy.

Oh wait, I posted explicitly about the late Stephen Hawking’s work on this, which is being continued by his Ph.D student Thomas Hertog, in this detailed post.

You can’t even exert the diligence required to use the forum search function.