Why don't you believe?

I beg your pardon, what is it about "created’ you don’t understand?

Does this help?

Definition of create

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1 : to bring into existence… God created the heaven and the earth.— Genesis 1:1 (King James Version)

2a : to invest with a new form, office, or rankShe was created a lieutenant.

b : to produce or bring about by a course of action or behaviorHer arrival created a terrible fuss.create new jobs

3 : CAUSE, OCCASIONFamine creates high food prices.

4a : to produce through imaginative skillcreate a painting

b : DESIGNcreates dresses

It’s not a complex idea. And yes, ‘created’ does infer a creator.

This atheist is not able to believe the universe had a creator. All I can say with confidence is the universe exists. That it seems to have begun with the so-called big bang. I can’t prove that, either can anyone else as far as I’m aware.

To say 'therefore god did it" is facile and shallow, imo. Also a logical fallacy.“god of the gaps” .The fallacy finds its genesis in an argument from ignorance. IE : “I lack the knowledge, imagination and the wit to think of anything else, and my dogmatic certitude will not allow me to simply say I don’t know”

1 Like

It makes me think some people are still learning the language from Victorian era English textbooks.
It was a popular style, where the capitalisation of the first letter of a word imparted a certain significance to that word.
Still popular with theists who like to draw unwarranted Attention to Important things They Write and to Themselves, but not to atheists.
Its squawking annoying.

1 Like

How do you mean Evathyst? You mean like transferring faith in one mythical fantasy that lacks substantial evidence of existence to another mythical fantasy that lacks substantial evidence of existence?

1 Like

Andl Your first answer is a fallacious, the Reversal fallacy, Shifting the burden, may be Tu Quoque.

Even to have a simple identifiable basis or standard of proof or what you would accept as Conclusion Proof is contentious, already.

1 Like

You have turned surgeon and excised the word "created’ and asked your own question, to he who asked you the question.

1 Like

You’ve offered only a bare claim, no evidence at all, let alone objective evidence.

Humans like all living things evolved, this a scientific fact underpinned by overwhelming objective evidence.

Again this is naught but a subjective claim, and again it is directly contradicted by all the objective evidence, which shows that eyes evolved. In fact the evolution of the eye from light sensitive skin cells that indicate the shadow of a predator passing over, to the evolved eye of an eagle can be observed right now on living species.

Evolution is also an observed fact. Scientists have caused speciation in laboratories.

It is unwise to have such decision

I disagree, and since again you have offered nothing but a bare claim, I have to continue to disagree. If you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity then I shall remain an atheist. However in order to keep an open mind, why don’t you offer the most compelling reason you have for believing in an extant deity?

You’re wasting your time with creationist attacks on evolution, as all the evidence establishes this beyond any reasonable doubt.

1 Like

I answered your question, which I’m allowed to do here.

My apologies if I misread questions I think are implicit in your question.

I also thought your question was disingenuous because of what is implied… Your subsequent posts support that perception.

Of course I may be mistaken, in which case, people here I trust will soon let me know.

In the meantime, it is my position is that god cannot be argued into or out of existence.That means I have minimal interest in the sophistry christian apologists insist on spewing at every opportunity .

That as with metaphysical questions generally, all claims about God are unfalsifiable, as far as I know. I demand empirical evidence and will accept nothing less.

1 Like

Zeus? Apollo? Or did you mean the Aztec deity of gluttony?

Could you narrow it down please?

I don’t mean anything by it, as I never said it.

I always imagine them drinking furniture polish, believing it to be Polish wine. :sunglasses:

1 Like

I guess you are really on a war path. Anyway, I actually wanted to get a sense of what you truly meant.

Well, the inflationary big bang model is the only workable model that accurately describes our universe and the space-time theorems do not allow for a universe that is infinite to the past. There’s simply no workable theory that accurately describes our universe that bypasses the finitude of the universe to the past.

There are some ways of speculating though, ie The CCC. And hmm No, the fact that the universe has a beginning does not automatically say God. All it means is there’s an agent beyond space-time the started the whole shabang. One could postulate that the fundamental laws themselves are eternal. To say God or go any other way, would require putting other pieces on the table, but the BVG and the inflationary big bang model on their own do not tell us anything about the existence of God cos its outside of what they can describe.
Again I wanted to see what you were tracking but I guess your answer is “You don’t know”.

It’s kinda rich though that you are so quick in accusing me of some fallacy when you were making like 1 or 2 fallacies of your own. Anyway,it’s fine…

Have you noticed how many religions apologists use unecessary line breaks to start new paragraphs.

As if their superstitious guff gains some validation, and reveals an esoteric meaning.

If the spread the fucking post over as many paragraphs as possible.

It’s also very annoying. :sunglasses:

That’s risible nonsense. I think you mean an inverse fallacy as well. Fallacies that appeal to ignorance to reverse the burden of proof though are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, which is what your question was of course, an appeal to ignorance fallacy, to reverse your burden of proof for your belief, and move it onto those who don’t share that belief. It’s your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours. I’m also getting a sense you’re trolling now.

Besides I already said what would cause me to believe in a deity, and it’s the same as all other claims, the demonstion of sufficient objective evidence.

Have you any?

By the way, since you’ve indulged in sophistry regarding the burden of proof so early in the debate, what evidence would you accept that invisible garden fairies, undetectable in any empirical way, are real?

I think that pretty much dispenses with your spiel that is undoubtedly heading for an unfalsifiable god claim, and an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

1 Like

Have you books of unicorn or garden fairies incarnate? Unicorn or garden fairies books, with plans of salvation redemption and reconciliation of souls with God, hmm?

Take it back to the first human being, will ya?

Why not be specific about the evolutionary line hmm?

Smh, @Nyarlathotep now here is where, saying " non sequitur " is justified to say.

The cheek, when you show me an example of an eye lash you have designed and created, then you have to right to criticise someone else design

One word @David_Killens, Specification. This is a clear case of requirement specification.

26Then God said, “ Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,
to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,
and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him ;
male and female He created them
"

  • Genesis 1:26-27

I like red, the colour exudes an air of love, romance, boldness, courage, danger etcetera me. We, human beings are the image representation of different attributes of God. God is incorporeal, but created human beings to physically project different aspect, images and likeness of the Godhead

Image is instant, likeness is continuum and the latter is evident in Genesis 1:27, as seen above. It is unfortunate that, ever since God took the adventure to create man in His image and likeness, man retrospectively has had the desire to want to return the favour and wilfully contravene The Second Commandment, by creating God in his image, according to an atypical representation, formulation, theory, perverted idea et cetera or even the classic atheist republic misrepresentation of God

Do the Harry Potter books validate wizards and wizardry? No book, including the bible, can validate it’s own claims, only objective evidence can do this.

The first humans evolved just two hundred thousand years ago, evolution is billions of years old. However this is just an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you’re using, a god of the gaps polemic. Even without evolution, creationism us not supported by a shred of objective evidence, and your assertions suggest you don’t even understand what the phrase means.

You have entirely missed the point, that theists assert evolved traits as part of a perfect design by an infallible deity, are demonstrably false. As the examples offered showed. That’s what objective evidence looks like btw.

And we know this isn’t true, because humans evolved, this is a scientific fact, supported by all the objective evidence.

Atheist can’t have a definition of any deity, that’s axiomatic. The atheists here only debate the deities theists imagine are real, and of course there are limitless deities and versions, which you disbelieve are real, but can offer no objective difference from the one you choose to believe is real.

I disbelieve any of them are real, and for the same reason, that there is no objective evidence for the claim, no more or less for Zeus or Apollo, than for Jesus or Vishnu.

1 Like

Fuck ya - drives me nuts too! Especially after tedious time teaching kids how to use capitalization properly… mentally, I always put a “check mark” in the “can’t grasp written English protocols” and figure, hmmmm - if English is the first language, and this isn’t grasped, well then, fuck, “please, instruct me about your god ideas :bulb: “ (I’m always curious about their grasp on that)

For fucks‘ sakes Sheldon, have I NOT posted pics of my garden on this forum??? Jesus fuckin’Christ what More proof do you Need? The physical food exists as evidence of my Garden Fairies 🧚🏻‍♂️…here’s Further Proof!!!

Stupid skeptic heathen!!!

1 Like

They don’t need that shit. They love humans…nothing to “save us from” …or “souls” or to reconcile.

@Evathyst * Take it back to the first human being, will ya?*

Hahahahaha - impossible for bible story. Do you know anything about inbreeding and incest (ewwwww gross).
** The earliest members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis which evolved around 2.8 million years ago. Homo habilis has been considered the first species for which there is clear evidence of the use of stone tools.**

Sheldon Well we might ask the same of you, since it is your belief, but let’s start here…

Yeah, you’re going to have to join the dots for me. You asked why people didn’t believe in a deity. I answered because there is no objective evidence, then asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for your god claim. You then used irrational sophistry to obfuscate, and avoid answering, instead demanding those who don’t believe give a pro tem definition of what they will accept as evidence, which is absurdly irrational and dishonest. I politely pointed out that since it’s your claim a deity exists, it is for you to define and demonstrate what evidence you have. Bizarrely and equally dishonestly, you tried to label this irrational?

Of course as the thread has progressed you have failed to offer any objective evidence, and it was clear to us all, as we have seen such sophistry many times on here, that you were asking a loaded and irrational question so you could circle back to it and pretend the blame for you failing to demonstrate any objective evidence was somehow the fault of atheists who set an unacceptable standard.

  1. I shan’t waste any time defining objective evidence, as it is a self defining phrase.
  2. I set the same standard for all claims, not just your god claim, so there is demonstrably no bias on my part.
  3. You are undoubtedly heading for a special pleading fallacy, that asserts your god claim be ring fenced from this standard, we’ve all seen it many times before.
  4. Number 3 illustrates fairly obvious bias on your part, and not on the part of the atheist here.
  5. If you discard the need for objective evidence to support claims, what then is your criteria for disbelieving anything?
  6. What justification can you offer for making an irrational exception for your god claim, and deciding it need not be supported by objective evidence?
  7. What rational justification can you offer for cherry picking which scientific facts to believe, based on whether they contradict your religion’s archaic creation myths or not.

Why are you posturing as a female? That is incredibly dishonest.