Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Ken demanded proof from me while going on his opinion without proof and evidence.It is intellectual dishonesty which is why I demand the same proof and evidence that they do when it comes to God,they ignore our evidence while having none just going on their opinion or non-peer reviewed scientific ideas in some cases.

Perhaps you should go back and read what was said. I was very clear that it was NOT my opinion. I was just giving examples of what a person COULD believe. You made a claim, so I asked you to back it up. I have nothing to back up because I never made any claims.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote: Ken,it is impossible to reject the reasons I gave for why God is the most logical cause for Dark matter,

I disagree! I've rejected many of your claims and I have yet to do anything that could be considered Impossible.

abelcainsbrother wrote: as soon as you reject it,you are doing so based on your opinion without any evidence or logic behind it,just your biased opinion.

I rejected your claims because you have yet to provide any credible evidence to support your claim

abelcainsbrother wrote: You think that by rejecting evidence and logical reasons to believe in God,you are somehow excused from wanting to get to the truth,but you are not excused,nobody is,unless they could careless what the truth is and are just going on opinions.I don't know will not and does not work when you are rejecting evidence and logical reasons to believe God caused Dark Matter.

I may not know all the right answers, but I can sometimes recognize a wrong answer when presented with one. Here is how I see it; if you are trying to convince me that A+B=C, you need to provide evidence to my satisfaction that C is the correct answer if you expect me to be convinced.
If I reject your claim of C as the correct answer, I will explain in detail why I have rejected your answer as the correct one. But because I have rejected your claim, it doesn't mean I have the right answer and it doesn't mean I have no interest in knowing the correct answer; all it means is your answer does not sound realistic to me. So when I say I don't know, it isn't a cop-out, I am just being honest in saying I may not know the right answer, but I can recognize your answer as the wrong one.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Instead of just going on your biased opinion,while not caring or wanting to know and discover truth you should just realize that right now at this present time,with all of the scientific knowledge man has been able to gather,the evidence right now still points to God as the cause of everything in the Universe,

What scientific evidence points to God?

abelcainsbrother wrote: not just dark matter,and rejecting this based on a biased opinion without having any reason to think otherwise is intellectual laziness.

I've explained in great detail why I have rejected your claims. That is hardly intellectual laziness.

abelcainsbrother wrote: You can know the truth based on the knowledge we have so far but you have to be willing to accept it and you are not doing it for some reason.

Knowledge WE have? Who is this "we" you speak of?

Ken

All you do is deny evidence and logical conclusions to believe God caused Dark matter to hold to your biased opinion,without any evidence.You think you have made a point when you deny evidence and reasons for God and then claim you have not convinced me and I don't know.But it is easy to do what you do and requires no evidence,reason or anything to hold to your biased no evidence opinion.You have no reason to reject God based on your biased "I don't know" opinion and it shows that you would rather go on your no evidence opinion than face the evidence for God while pretending we don't know.

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up any of the claims you've made. Got it!

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote: Perhaps you should go back and read what was said. I was very clear that it was NOT my opinion. I was just giving examples of what a person COULD believe. You made a claim, so I asked you to back it up. I have nothing to back up because I never made any claims.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote: Ken,it is impossible to reject the reasons I gave for why God is the most logical cause for Dark matter,

I disagree! I've rejected many of your claims and I have yet to do anything that could be considered Impossible.

abelcainsbrother wrote: as soon as you reject it,you are doing so based on your opinion without any evidence or logic behind it,just your biased opinion.

I rejected your claims because you have yet to provide any credible evidence to support your claim

abelcainsbrother wrote: You think that by rejecting evidence and logical reasons to believe in God,you are somehow excused from wanting to get to the truth,but you are not excused,nobody is,unless they could careless what the truth is and are just going on opinions.I don't know will not and does not work when you are rejecting evidence and logical reasons to believe God caused Dark Matter.

I may not know all the right answers, but I can sometimes recognize a wrong answer when presented with one. Here is how I see it; if you are trying to convince me that A+B=C, you need to provide evidence to my satisfaction that C is the correct answer if you expect me to be convinced.
If I reject your claim of C as the correct answer, I will explain in detail why I have rejected your answer as the correct one. But because I have rejected your claim, it doesn't mean I have the right answer and it doesn't mean I have no interest in knowing the correct answer; all it means is your answer does not sound realistic to me. So when I say I don't know, it isn't a cop-out, I am just being honest in saying I may not know the right answer, but I can recognize your answer as the wrong one.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Instead of just going on your biased opinion,while not caring or wanting to know and discover truth you should just realize that right now at this present time,with all of the scientific knowledge man has been able to gather,the evidence right now still points to God as the cause of everything in the Universe,

What scientific evidence points to God?

abelcainsbrother wrote: not just dark matter,and rejecting this based on a biased opinion without having any reason to think otherwise is intellectual laziness.

I've explained in great detail why I have rejected your claims. That is hardly intellectual laziness.

abelcainsbrother wrote: You can know the truth based on the knowledge we have so far but you have to be willing to accept it and you are not doing it for some reason.

Knowledge WE have? Who is this "we" you speak of?

Ken

All you do is deny evidence and logical conclusions to believe God caused Dark matter to hold to your biased opinion,without any evidence.You think you have made a point when you deny evidence and reasons for God and then claim you have not convinced me and I don't know.But it is easy to do what you do and requires no evidence,reason or anything to hold to your biased no evidence opinion.You have no reason to reject God based on your biased "I don't know" opinion and it shows that you would rather go on your no evidence opinion than face the evidence for God while pretending we don't know.

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up any of the claims you've made. Got it!

Ken

You've got it backwards. I have evidence and logic on my side,it is you that don't.

Kenny wrote: Well if you've got evidence and logic on your side, PRESENT SOME!!! For the ump-teen time you have been asked by me (and others) to present any evidence you have to back up your claims. If you have evidence, present it, and we can have a discussion.

Ken

Hortator wrote:http://www.godandscience.org

These forums are actually an extension of the main website, not the other way around. If you have a question, you should go here first, because chances are high it has been asked and answered to a reasonable satisfaction, if not more so.

RickD wrote:Is think Hortador was suggesting, that if anyone really wanted to see evidence for God's existence, they can click on the link from the home site.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

I disagree! I've rejected many of your claims and I have yet to do anything that could be considered Impossible.


I rejected your claims because you have yet to provide any credible evidence to support your claim

I may not know all the right answers, but I can sometimes recognize a wrong answer when presented with one. Here is how I see it; if you are trying to convince me that A+B=C, you need to provide evidence to my satisfaction that C is the correct answer if you expect me to be convinced.
If I reject your claim of C as the correct answer, I will explain in detail why I have rejected your answer as the correct one. But because I have rejected your claim, it doesn't mean I have the right answer and it doesn't mean I have no interest in knowing the correct answer; all it means is your answer does not sound realistic to me. So when I say I don't know, it isn't a cop-out, I am just being honest in saying I may not know the right answer, but I can recognize your answer as the wrong one.


What scientific evidence points to God?


I've explained in great detail why I have rejected your claims. That is hardly intellectual laziness.


Knowledge WE have? Who is this "we" you speak of?

Ken

All you do is deny evidence and logical conclusions to believe God caused Dark matter to hold to your biased opinion,without any evidence.You think you have made a point when you deny evidence and reasons for God and then claim you have not convinced me and I don't know.But it is easy to do what you do and requires no evidence,reason or anything to hold to your biased no evidence opinion.You have no reason to reject God based on your biased "I don't know" opinion and it shows that you would rather go on your no evidence opinion than face the evidence for God while pretending we don't know.

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up any of the claims you've made. Got it!

Ken

You've got it backwards. I have evidence and logic on my side,it is you that don't.

Well if you've got evidence and logic on your side, PRESENT SOME!!! For the ump-teen time you have been asked by me (and others) to present any evidence you have to back up your claims. If you have evidence, present it, and we can have a discussion.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:
All you do is deny evidence and logical conclusions to believe God caused Dark matter to hold to your biased opinion,without any evidence.You think you have made a point when you deny evidence and reasons for God and then claim you have not convinced me and I don't know.But it is easy to do what you do and requires no evidence,reason or anything to hold to your biased no evidence opinion.You have no reason to reject God based on your biased "I don't know" opinion and it shows that you would rather go on your no evidence opinion than face the evidence for God while pretending we don't know.

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up any of the claims you've made. Got it!

Ken

You've got it backwards. I have evidence and logic on my side,it is you that don't.

Well if you've got evidence and logic on your side, PRESENT SOME!!! For the ump-teen time you have been asked by me (and others) to present any evidence you have to back up your claims. If you have evidence, present it, and we can have a discussion.

Ken

I don't debate one-sided where I have evidence you deny,while you have no evidence.

edwardmurphy wrote:This is off topic, but you guys have a tendency to add a single line to the end of a massive multi-quote, and I wish you wouldn't do that. I swear sometimes I do more scrolling than reading.

Anyway, carry on...

RickD wrote:It keeps the context intact for those who are following along.

abelcainsbrother wrote:You've got it backwards. I have evidence and logic on my side,it is you that don't.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote: Perhaps you should go back and read what was said. I was very clear that it was NOT my opinion. I was just giving examples of what a person COULD believe. You made a claim, so I asked you to back it up. I have nothing to back up because I never made any claims.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote: Ken,it is impossible to reject the reasons I gave for why God is the most logical cause for Dark matter,

I disagree! I've rejected many of your claims and I have yet to do anything that could be considered Impossible.

abelcainsbrother wrote: as soon as you reject it,you are doing so based on your opinion without any evidence or logic behind it,just your biased opinion.

I rejected your claims because you have yet to provide any credible evidence to support your claim

abelcainsbrother wrote: You think that by rejecting evidence and logical reasons to believe in God,you are somehow excused from wanting to get to the truth,but you are not excused,nobody is,unless they could careless what the truth is and are just going on opinions.I don't know will not and does not work when you are rejecting evidence and logical reasons to believe God caused Dark Matter.

I may not know all the right answers, but I can sometimes recognize a wrong answer when presented with one. Here is how I see it; if you are trying to convince me that A+B=C, you need to provide evidence to my satisfaction that C is the correct answer if you expect me to be convinced.
If I reject your claim of C as the correct answer, I will explain in detail why I have rejected your answer as the correct one. But because I have rejected your claim, it doesn't mean I have the right answer and it doesn't mean I have no interest in knowing the correct answer; all it means is your answer does not sound realistic to me. So when I say I don't know, it isn't a cop-out, I am just being honest in saying I may not know the right answer, but I can recognize your answer as the wrong one.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Instead of just going on your biased opinion,while not caring or wanting to know and discover truth you should just realize that right now at this present time,with all of the scientific knowledge man has been able to gather,the evidence right now still points to God as the cause of everything in the Universe,

What scientific evidence points to God?

abelcainsbrother wrote: not just dark matter,and rejecting this based on a biased opinion without having any reason to think otherwise is intellectual laziness.

I've explained in great detail why I have rejected your claims. That is hardly intellectual laziness.

abelcainsbrother wrote: You can know the truth based on the knowledge we have so far but you have to be willing to accept it and you are not doing it for some reason.

Knowledge WE have? Who is this "we" you speak of?

Ken

All you do is deny evidence and logical conclusions to believe God caused Dark matter to hold to your biased opinion,without any evidence.You think you have made a point when you deny evidence and reasons for God and then claim you have not convinced me and I don't know.But it is easy to do what you do and requires no evidence,reason or anything to hold to your biased no evidence opinion.You have no reason to reject God based on your biased "I don't know" opinion and it shows that you would rather go on your no evidence opinion than face the evidence for God while pretending we don't know.

So in other words, you have no evidence to back up any of the claims you've made. Got it!

Ken

You've got it backwards. I have evidence and logic on my side,it is you that don't.

RickD wrote:I'm just sayin too.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Hortator wrote:http://www.godandscience.org

These forums are actually an extension of the main website, not the other way around. If you have a question, you should go here first, because chances are high it has been asked and answered to a reasonable satisfaction, if not more so.

So ACB makes a bunch of bold claims and we're supposed to determine precisely what he meant by them and then track down his specific sources in order to better understand a position that he endlessly repeats but never clarifies or supports?

Nope.