Proven just as much as gravity. Ofcoarse you cant believe in gravity according to the bible. So naturally I see the problem.Not proven.
However, the great majority of scientists todayMy argument did not consist of referring to popularity.
That is an appeal to popularity.
Virtual particles or nuclear decay to start. You have yet to rebuttal those.Such as?
So you believe my invisible pink unicorn exists. Given he will take a little while to find you. Then your house is soooo trashed.Yes, if there are good reasons to believe something, then the rational mind will either believe it or will object with a logical inconsistency in that something.
Too which have all been refuted. Infact you haven't even provided a single bit of evidence so without that you cannot rationally believe anything even if there's a good argument to believe in it. Which you don't even have.here are good reasons to believe in God, as I have outlined in my previous posts
He is going to trash your house. The only way to stop him from trashing your house is if you physically shoo him away. Which you cannot do unless you see him. The only way to see him is to believe he exists. That's a pretty good reason. I haven't potty trained my invisible pink unicorn neither. So he will leave unicorn poo all over your place and you wont be able to clean it up. He may also even get angry and start bitting you constantly once he finishes trashing you house. Nothing you can do unless you believe he exists.and so your invisible pink unicorn illustration is not an equivalent analogy.
That's a pretty good reason to believe he exists.
Please highlight where you actually provided evidence... such that we can scientifically test and prove God exists.I have seen not a single shred of evidence in this post yet.
Which post have you been reading?
On the contrary I have not used an ad hominem attack. Which you misspelled. The goal of an ad hominem attack if to divert or avoid an argument or point. In place of a personal attack. I have responded to every single point in your post. So I couldn't possibly be accused of diverting attention or avoiding points. I can be accused of personal attacks. However your deficiency in logic has to be addressed as it pertains directly to the topic at hand. I would not get into an argument with a blind person whether or not something looks beautiful. It is illogical to do so.It really is sad when people are having a reasonable discussion and one of the proponents must resort to ad homenen attacks.
So calling a spade a spade is necessary.
Lets look at what you said exactly what I was responding too.
There is no point here to be addressed.The rational mind would believe in the existence of God, rather than not.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Since you made no point here. I could not address the substance of any argument or produce evidence against your claim. Since no claim exists. Thusly I could not subvert the point being made.
This again only proves further how you have no understanding of what logic is. You don't know what an ad hominem is. You don't understand basic logic. I've pointed out at least 5 outright fallacies of yours. Which you cannot address. Which is why you've skipped over so much of my post.
So lets get back to what you originally said.
Given you have no logical basis for the existence of God. The arguments you do present are all fallacies. This is the complete opposite of what rationality is. Which only proves you have no grasp of logic.The rational mind would believe in the existence of God, rather than not.
Thanks for making the self-refutation argument. It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to change. This disproves God's omnipotence and omniscience together. Omnipotence demands he be capable of change. You on the otherhand now also affirm you wish to put me and 85% of the world population to death. How very moral of you. Hitler wouldn't even dare cause that much death. You are clearly more homicidal and evil then Hitler.A person can change their clothes, it doesn't make them any less perfect or imperfect.
Also, it is logically impossible for God to change as he is not in time. Changes can only occur in time.
Fine. So thusly you murder non-believers. You are commanded by God afterall. You support this. I'm very glad I do not know you in real life. Infact I think due to your delusional level verified by the DSM and your homicidal tendencies you should be locked up in jail for the safety of humanity.How has God changed in any of the verses you quoted? God was just back then, and He is still just today.
If god exists and has omniscience. I cannot "lose" my free will. I would NEVER ever had it. Which is full contradiction with facts in evidence. The obvious faulty problem is that God exists and has omniscience. Disproving omniscience at least.If God knows in advance what decision you will make, that does not mean that you then lose your free will to make that decision.
Prove it. You are making the assertion. Feel absolutely free to use any level of physics to actually prove this. Afterall we are at PHYSICSforums :)Whether the universe had matter before the big bang is a non-issue, because that matter would need a cause. In fact, the whole universe in itself would still need a cause.
We have been through this already. Virtual particles is matter which takes up space for a period of time. Virtual particles are also first-cause as nothing causes virtual particles to come into being and go out of being. Also of note. Please prove your statement. Even then... this is also not an issue because other "big bangs" can be occuring so far away from us that the light hasn't traveled to us yet to observe that big bang. Even if the light appeared in the sky. We do not monitor all the sky and it would be such a small dot that we may calculate it to be something else. As the red-shift effect may not necessarily have a corresponding effect.Big Bang and matter cannot be a first cause, because if it were then we should see matter randomly appearing out of nothing today.
Prove this please.But we don't. Metaphysically we know that things that exist need a cause.
Omnipotence (literally, "all power") is power with no limits i.e. unlimited power. Monotheistic religions generally attribute omnipotence only to God.The word omnipotence has been used historically by Christians as a word to describe God being able to do everything that is logically consistent.
Apologists aka propagandists may not take this definition any longer. However it discontinues being omnipotence if they propose a single limitation. You need to accept this and either accept the omnipotence paradox as disproof of your god. Or you no longer believe in an omnipotent god. Furthermore the bible doesn't support your apologetics.
Here you prove you aren't as knowledgable about the Bible as you should be.Regardless, God does not label himself with the term 'omnipotent', he just describes that he can do all things that are logically consistent.
the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
I invite you to take some of his arguments and refute them and show how they are misinformed and laughable. Or PM me.The arguments used in Dawkin's book are simply misinformed and laughable.
Then again I've shown how you use fallacy after fallacy and are misinformed on basically everything else. That does make you laughable.