I just laid out an excellent example on a proposition that is falsifiable (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Eddington’s solar eclipse results).
TheFlyingPig is just going to keep people going around and around debating him at every point, disproving them, and he will just spout more nonsense to continue this thread.
My thoughts and intention. My fault entirely, I’ve succumbed to an argument from ignorance: I’m unable to believe the guy is as pig ignorant , as bloody minded or simply as confused as he seems.
Much to his embarrassment a good friend’s lawyer daughter became a happy clapper. Last time I saw her, she opined that there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus*** than for the existence of Julius Caesar-----it’s all relative I guess 
***Yes, her pastor told her that.
You are either a very very slow learner, or the most blinkered dishonest poster ever. Falsifiability is an essential component of the method, it’s there because the phenomenal success of modern science wouldn’t have happened without it. Religion had thousands of years and failed to expand our objective knowledge of the physical world and universe one iota.
We don’t know, can’t be used to infer any claim, as you have done here yet again. It is a known logical fallacy, and therefore irrational.
Scientism has nothing to do with science, it’s a made up term people use to attack the scientific method, when that method contradicts their superstitious fantasies. Your post is risible nonsense, based on a blatant lie, unfalsiable claims are scientifically and epistemologically meaningless, because even if they are false there is no way to falsify them. Its beyond moronic to keep blaming science because you can’t produce a shred of evidence for something you are determined to believe is real no matter what.
So what? Someone is unhappy with the scientific method, well they don’t have to be a scientist do they, they can become a philosopher, or even better a religious philosopher, as they require no evidence at all for the superstitious swill they peddle to the gullible and the ignorant.
Your war on science is the most pointless idiotic waste of time, as it doesn’t evidence any deity at all.
Rubbish, dream on.
Rubbish again, atheism rises exponentially with education, and is highest among elite scientists. You’re simply making up lies, again one has to hope you’re trolling.
From the man whose superstitious beliefs have prompted him to attack science relentlessly, fucking hilarious fair play. 
Was his Nobel prize for evidencing a deity, or anything supernatural? This is just more moronic quote mining, and it is the very definition of an appeal to authority fallacy.
From Galileo to modern creationists, religion has been attacking science as it relentlessly and objectively shows religion’s immutable truths to be errant nonsense.
Is it true that the world is not at the centre of the universe?
Do take your time…
If you believe something then you need evidence to back up that belief , we are all agreed on that .
What constitutes evidence as it relates to my belief in God ? As I’ve stated repeatedly creation itself - the known universe - has more than sufficient evidence to justify a belief in God .
Let’s start with what is known as LIFE . We know what the atheist position is - inanimate, lifeless matter that came from nothing over billions of years produced consciousness. Consciousness is the interface we have with reality , in fact it is reality . Where is the scientific evidence , peer reviewed and everything else that in fact lifeless inanimate matter produced consciousness ?
First off - before we get into consciousness, are you saying that the physical universe did not exist before “consciousness”?
Also, what is your definition or meaning of consciousness?
And what qualifies (or qualities/characteristics) of life?
Edited to add: YOU are aware that none of us (well, most of us) aren’t experts in any of the fields you are bringing up - BUT we all have access to google, AND our own thought on the matter - ALSO just because a question gets an “answer” doesn’t make it “true” - again, being truthful is often an “I don’t know” (which can/may leave a person with an uncomfortable feeling of uncertainty - which is good - BECAUSE nobody has all the “answers”)
TheFlyingPig
More evidence that you know SHIT - NOTHING about atheists. Atheists are people who do not believe in God or gods. How fucking hard is that for you to grasp; They are not people who believe " inanimate, lifeless matter that came from nothing over billions of years produced consciousness." Frankly, we are not stupid enough to believe such nonsense … for the most part… and very much unlike the theists.
Atheists, simply do not believe your god claim.
Can you demonstrate that the “Nothing” you spoke of, which you think atheists believe in, actually exists? Have you ever witnessed “Nothing.” If you did witness it, would it still be nothing? Can you show us how everything could possibly be “Nothing.” And to which nothing are you referring.
If you assert that nothing ever came from the mathematical nothing, as far as I know you would be correct. But math does not always comport with reality. Science knows that nothing comes from something all the time, but then the scientific nothing is full of something anyway and the stuff that just appears may or may not come from nothing, no one actually knows.
At the very best… all you can say about Atheists is that they do not believe your God claims. That’s it. Nothing more. I did not hear anyone tell you that they believed something came from nothing. You are just creating straw man bullshit so you can try to make yourself sound more intelligent than you obviously are.
Says the man who believes in a deity he can’t evidence at all.
That’s a special pleading fallacy, your god claim doesn’t get to be treated any differently to any other claim, just because of your obvious bias.
That’s still a begging the question fallacy, as you’ve been told again and again, you don’t just get to assume that everything is created in your argument for a created universe . Just how many times must this be explained to you?
A straw man fallacy, another shameless lie you are determined to repeat ad nauseam. I am an atheist, and I don’t, and never have held any such belief.
Another straw man fallacy, as I’ve made no such claim.
And around and around he goes…with another god of the gaps fallacy…I ask again, what do you hope to achieve by presenting endless logical fallacies to an atheist debate forum where we know they’re irrational guff?
I notice tThelyingpig has dodged yet another question.
Well, either lifeless inanimate matter produced consciousness or something else did . It’s not rocket science buddy . Which is it ?
Well, either lifeless inanimate matter produced consciousness or something else did . It’s not rocket science buddy . Which is it ?
Sigh, another false dichotomy fallacy. So it seems the most simple reasoning is in fact akin to rocket science for you.
Well, either lifeless inanimate matter produced consciousness or something else did . It’s not rocket science buddy .
A classic false dichotomy. Are you running through a book of fallacies and just trying them all?
YES - and some day we may know. We also might rule out an eternal consciousness that so many theists want to call god. “Consciousness is God” bullshit.
Ohhhh - careful… BECAUSE Is your god alive?
I have many of these, for example - pick one:
•God (prime cause) cares and interacts with His creation. No known explanation of where God came from (lives outside time/space ie our reality)
• God (prime cause) doesn’t care or interact with its creation. No known explanation of where God came from (lives outside time/space ie our reality)
• Simulation hypothesis- our “reality” is a future/alien civilization model/game. We can’t escape our “reality”. No known explanation of where Civilization came from (lives outside time/space ie our reality)
• The “Big Bang” Theory - our reality is expanding and evolving over 14 billion years. No known explanation of where Expansion came from (started outside time/space ie our reality)
• “Universe always existed” it’s a cycle hypothesis
There are a shitload more- from ancient mythology, other cultures, scientific hypothesis… etc
Very simple terms above - but you get the gist.
The scientific method using our reality (the one thing we know we have and can interact with) as a standard has a slew of demonstrable evidence for one…
YOU say “God” … I say, demonstrable evidence please - not all answers are “equal” just as not all questions are intelligent.
@TheFlyingPig, is simply posting an endless circle jerk of fallacious irrational arguments and claims.
quod erat demonstrandum
I’m beginning to think you’re just wasting our time. We disagree because of epistemological reasons, and just listing more things that you consider are evidence, isn’t helping.
I don’t think you were an Atheist who went and read some science facts and just decided to believe in god. After reading all of your posts, examining your handling of scientific knowledge, your sentence structure, grammar, word choices, etc. I would assume you are still in high school or at a high school level of education. I think you are somebody with a non-science background, been indoctrinated since you were a child, read some science facts online, were naive enough to think that you could hop onto an atheist website and convince us when we really you just exposed your own ignorance. We’re all ignorant, but it is frustrating when people act like or think they know what they are talking about when they don’t. I believe that the key flaw in your thinking is your epistemology, and that is the part of the conversation you are ignoring.
I want to ask you a few questions:
Do you care about knowing truth?
Would you change if you knew truth was different than you thought it was today?
If you can’t answer yes to both of these questions we’re done. Go back to your echo chamber on the other side of the internet and feel good that you think you know what truth is. If you do care, we can continue, otherwise this is a waste of time for all of us. Red or blue pill Neo?
Don’t forget he has dishonestly rehashed the same logical fallacies, and never even acknowledges refutations that explain them.
Even lying that his fallacious and therefore irrational claims are logical. Again, despite it being explained painstakingly to him again and again that anything containing a known logical fallacy is illogical by definition.
Yes, agreed. He’s used multiple fallacies and kept giving us his “evidence” based on his bad epistemology. He may just be trolling us.
People with unfalsifiable beliefs, both religion and conspiracy theories, all think that their unfalsifiable belief should be a special case. 
But those others are wrong!
Though they always fail to offer a rational justification for their bias of course, as has flyingpig.
AND if not his willful clinging to ignorance is enough to say … “hey, if ever he really is interested in learning, there’s a whole world out there (from the horse’s mouth itself) that he can investigate.”
He puts the effort into his religious apologist sites and trods the shit over here.
Edited to add: Enjoy the one life YOU KNOW you have sailingswine!!!
Boy, I’ll see ya
I wouldn’t want to be ya… 