Sigh, how do you clam to know no natural phenomena existed prior to the big bang?
Where did your deity come from?
What caused your deity?
You are making up rules, then ignoring the fact you are using a special pleading fallacy to pretend those rules don’t apply to the deity you imagine exists.
Bumpity bumpity bump…
Look I don’t care for bitterness, invective and abuse, believe what you want, this is the last response you will get from me in the forum going forward. Either apologize for your rude and abusive attacks on my character and honesty and calling me a liar or you can piss in the wind, because I don’t have time for juvenility like this, it has no place in adult discourse.
How many last times are you going to have with him?
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you
Now that, @Get_off_my_lawn, made me belly laugh! A perfect Rick roll!
To answer questions apparently.
Well he’s only human… 
So anyone can use the links to read @Sherlock-Holmes post verbatim, but there I have highlighted a raft of dishonest and sweeping straw men, now here is his response:
So a single sentence, that doesn’t address anything in my posts, and that is also a pretty obvious and deliberate lie emboldened. All anyone need do is read my posts and see how often I level accusations of duplicity, and see that the claim it is “every time a disagreement comes up” is deliberate mendacity on his part. The fact he used this lie in a generic way, and evaded addressing his previous straw men lies merely reinforces how dishonest he is being here.
Now look at this:
The answer was he does not know, yet he then claimed it (his deity) had always existed, how compelling can his argument be when the rule he is insisting applies to the origins of the universe be set aside for the deity he imagines is real?
So there are salient questions asked about claims and assertions @Sherlock-Holmes has made, and here is the dishonest and evasive response, we now see is his standard lie when confronted with questions he doesn’t want to answer.
If his claims and arguments were sound, would he really need to so dishonestly evade simple questions like that?
The more I am reading the more I am struck that he was far more relentlessly dishonest than I had remembered, and I ought really to have called him on it sooner and more often.
Your thorough expositions have made it clear to me that this Sherlock person is contentiously intent on having the appearance of having right, not on actually being right with facts and sound arguments. And doing so in a boiling the frog or camel’s nose manner.
IMO, “string theory” should be called the string hypothesis or string conjecture. The problem with strings is that the theory makes no testable predictions. And if there’s no way to test it, there’s no way to falsify it, and hence it’s not a valid scientific theory. Physicists have been working on strings for four decades and still haven’t come up with testable predictions.
Does this make the string hypothesis false? No, but there’s also no reason to accept it either. Other theories have had testable predictions (for example, the existence of the cosmic background radiation was predicted in the late 1940s and verified in the 1960s), hence are reasonably called theories.
Your deity is like the string hypothesis–no evidence, no predictions, no way to falsify, hence no reason to assume there’s any truth to it.
Non-sequitur
noun
WTF? Why don’t you offer the quotes? “Duh! So you really do believe the magical jelly man who stole my bike was grape?”
The fucking response is so lame and so unrelated as to be completely non sequitur. Is this the extent to Shelock’s ability to debate? You ask him for quotes, and he acts like a fucking asshole who can’t speak English?
Wow, you nailed him in one, that’s exactly what his posts were like. relentlessly dishonest, and evasive. The real hilarity was when he whined about his mendacity being evidenced. I don’t miss him at all, I mean not even a tiny bit.
If Jesus were a real deity, I think Sherlock’s duplicity would’ve made Jesus cry. There I said it… 
Ironic.
Isn’t this the very reason why people claim to be atheists because they don’t want to use any faith in God? But somehow faith can be used for atheism? Why’s that?
Please explain, specifically and in detail, how I am using faith for atheism.
I am an atheist because no one can demonstrate any objective evidence or rational argument that any deity exists outside of the human imagination, or even that a deity or anything supernatural is even possible. I set the same standard of credulity for all claims.
In theists you mean? In my experience the words “I don’t know” do seem lost on them.
That’s another straw man fallacy, atheism is simply the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Though of course as a theist you’re in no position to decry faith. Also religious faith is defined as “strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof” so it is worse than useless in objectively or critically examining whether beliefs are true. Plus atheism is not a claim or a belief, so it needs no validation, and even if it did why on earth would it find it in the doctrines of religions?
It’s not faith, it’s simply not believing in any god/gods until there’s some real evidence for it’s existence.
@WhoAreYou, you need to respond to this. You’ve made an assertion and now you need to back it up. If you do not, it will be additional evidence that you are here to preach, not debate. 
If you don’t believe there is a God. Then you believe there is something else other than God that created everything. Yet you said
You have nothing that backs up God didn’t do it, except theories with, what you mentioned to be, a lack of knowledge/understanding which to me seems to be faith driven if it isn’t end to end knowledge driven, there seems to be a need of faith in there for the gaps in between the knowledge. The god of the gaps for some seems to be science?