Do you believe in Evolution?

[Riiser-Larsen]

Yes, exactly.

Thank you. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

No, but if there is no evidence of something then we would not assume it to be true. There is no evidence of Baal, so we do not assume him to be real, why shouldn't we do the same with god?

[Utceforp]

If God is timeless, then that would imply that he is being both created and destroyed at the same time, as all beings capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation. How can it possibly seem logical that there is a being which is immortal, violates all laws of reality, and exists out of time?

God's timelessness does not imply any kind of creation or destruction.
I see no reason to accept the claim that all beings capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation; every observed material being capable of conscious thinking does eventually degrade, but that is a far cry from saying that all beings whatsoever capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation.
Which law of reality is God violating? If God exists outside the spacetime apparatus of creation, which Christians claim He does, then it would be odd to assume He must be bound by the laws which operate within the spacetime apparatus of creation.

He's not just violating laws of reality, but also logic as well. Look up the Epicurean Trilemma. Also, if he's omnipotent, he's both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, which causes its own paradoxes.

[Neo Rome Republic]

Thank you. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

No, but if there is no evidence of something then we would not assume it to be true. There is no evidence of Baal, so we do not assume him to be real, why shouldn't we do the same with god?

Why should we assume it isn't true? That's what I'm having trouble getting my head around.

[The Tovian Way]

And is it your view, then, that any hypothesis which is not disproven is therefore true?

No. You don't prove hypotheses to be true, you only disprove them or attempt to promote the hypothesis to the status of theory.

For fucks sake what did they teach you in high school science?

The hypothesis then, "God does not exist" is not therefore proven by the lack of disproof against it, thereby demonstrating the falsehood of your initial claim "The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God."

[Bottle]

Thank you. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

No, but if there is no evidence of something then we would not assume it to be true. There is no evidence of Baal, so we do not assume him to be real, why shouldn't we do the same with god?

Really this is just pragmatic. After all, the number of things for which we have no evidence is infinite. The human brain does not have the capacity to believe in an infinite number of things, therefore we cannot assume the existence of all things for which we have no evidence.

This is known as Bottle's Ain't Nobody Got Time For That Principle.

[Mavorpen]

No. You don't prove hypotheses to be true, you only disprove them or attempt to promote the hypothesis to the status of theory.

For fucks sake what did they teach you in high school science?

The hypothesis then, "God does not exist" is not therefore proven by the lack of disproof against it,

Are you fucking kidding me? Did you JUST ignore EVERYTHING I said abouy the null hypothesis?

Fucking pathetic.

[Hurdegaryp]

No, but if there is no evidence of something then we would not assume it to be true. There is no evidence of Baal, so we do not assume him to be real, why shouldn't we do the same with god?

Why should we assume it isn't true? That's what I'm having trouble getting my head around.

If you want to be really safe, you should pay tribute to ALL the gods!

[Riiser-Larsen]

God's timelessness does not imply any kind of creation or destruction.
I see no reason to accept the claim that all beings capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation; every observed material being capable of conscious thinking does eventually degrade, but that is a far cry from saying that all beings whatsoever capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation.
Which law of reality is God violating? If God exists outside the spacetime apparatus of creation, which Christians claim He does, then it would be odd to assume He must be bound by the laws which operate within the spacetime apparatus of creation.

He's not just violating laws of reality, but also logic as well. Look up the Epicurean Trilemma. Also, if he's omnipotent, he's both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, which causes its own paradoxes.

Actually, there's some weird thing where unstoppable forces and immovable objects are the same thing. Movement is defined as a change in speed, that it should be a change from 0 most of the time is simply a coincidence. Unstoppable implies that it is moving and cannot be stopped. They'd just pass through each other, as neither could have a change in speed. this would likely result in a black hole pure awesomeness

[Temujinn]

Thank you. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

No, but if there is no evidence of something then we would not assume it to be true. There is no evidence of Baal, so we do not assume him to be real, why shouldn't we do the same with god?

With regards to science, you dont, not you shouldnt, but you dont. period.

Religion frankly doesnt belong in a Scientific discussion, unless it goes something like "Hey Im a member of X-Faith, anyway back to work, got this experiment here lets check it out."

[Densaner]

Yes.

[The Tovian Way]

God's timelessness does not imply any kind of creation or destruction.
I see no reason to accept the claim that all beings capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation; every observed material being capable of conscious thinking does eventually degrade, but that is a far cry from saying that all beings whatsoever capable of conscious thinking must have an eventual degradation.
Which law of reality is God violating? If God exists outside the spacetime apparatus of creation, which Christians claim He does, then it would be odd to assume He must be bound by the laws which operate within the spacetime apparatus of creation.

He's not just violating laws of reality, but also logic as well. Look up the Epicurean Trilemma. Also, if he's omnipotent, he's both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, which causes its own paradoxes.

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.
As for his omnipotence, His force is irresistible, but God cannot be said to be an immovable object, because He cannot be said to be an object; God exists outside spacetime, and is unbounded by the laws of material existence.

[Riiser-Larsen]

No, but if there is no evidence of something then we would not assume it to be true. There is no evidence of Baal, so we do not assume him to be real, why shouldn't we do the same with god?

With regards to science, you dont, not you shouldnt, but you dont. period.

Religion frankly doesnt belong in a Scientific discussion, unless it goes something like "Hey Im a member of X-Faith, anyway back to work, got this experiment here lets check it out."

I only said "shouldn't" because even discussing that in front of most heavily religious people usually results in an "Angry mob" event.

[The Tovian Way]

The hypothesis then, "God does not exist" is not therefore proven by the lack of disproof against it,

Are you fucking kidding me? Did you JUST ignore EVERYTHING I said abouy the null hypothesis?

Fucking pathetic.

Actually, what I just did was demonstrate, using everything you just said about the null hypothesis, that your original claim, that the null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God, was false.

[Bottle]

He's not just violating laws of reality, but also logic as well. Look up the Epicurean Trilemma. Also, if he's omnipotent, he's both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, which causes its own paradoxes.

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.

Sure, no problem, just give me a testable, falsifiable definition of "God."

[Temujinn]

He's not just violating laws of reality, but also logic as well. Look up the Epicurean Trilemma. Also, if he's omnipotent, he's both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, which causes its own paradoxes.

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.
As for his omnipotence, His force is irresistible, but God cannot be said to be an immovable object, because He cannot be said to be an object; God exists outside spacetime, and is unbounded by the laws of material existence.

Wow.

[Mavorpen]

Are you fucking kidding me? Did you JUST ignore EVERYTHING I said abouy the null hypothesis?

Fucking pathetic.

Actually, what I just did was demonstrate, using everything you just said about the null hypothesis, that your original claim, that the null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God, was false.

No you literally ignored everything I have just stated.

[Riiser-Larsen]

He's not just violating laws of reality, but also logic as well. Look up the Epicurean Trilemma. Also, if he's omnipotent, he's both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, which causes its own paradoxes.

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.
As for his omnipotence, His force is irresistible, but God cannot be said to be an immovable object, because He cannot be said to be an object; God exists outside spacetime, and is unbounded by the laws of material existence.

This is what I get confused on. How does it make more sense that there is an object which exists outside of space and time (space time is really different than that)and is capable of violating both conservation of matter and energy, than it does to believe that the carefully studied and several-times-proven explanation that scientists have might actually, just maybe be true.

[The Tovian Way]

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.

Sure, no problem, just give me a testable, falsifiable definition of "God."

Within the concept of the discussion I was having, namely, that Christian theism is compatible with theistic evolution, the Christian definition of God is assumed, merely to show the compatibility of the two.

[The Tovian Way]

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.
As for his omnipotence, His force is irresistible, but God cannot be said to be an immovable object, because He cannot be said to be an object; God exists outside spacetime, and is unbounded by the laws of material existence.

This is what I get confused on. How does it make more sense that there is an object which exists outside of space and time (space time is really different than that)and is capable of violating both conservation of matter and energy, than it does to believe that the carefully studied and several-times-proven explanation that scientists have might actually, just maybe be true.

God is not an object; He is a nonmaterial, nontemporal being. He does not exist within space or time, He exists outside this entire framework altogether. He does not violate conservation of matter and energy, because these are laws of the material universe of which He is wholly separate, and He is not composed of either matter or energy to begin with.

[Frisivisia]

He's not just violating laws of reality, but also logic as well. Look up the Epicurean Trilemma. Also, if he's omnipotent, he's both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, which causes its own paradoxes.

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.
As for his omnipotence, His force is irresistible, but God cannot be said to be an immovable object, because He cannot be said to be an object; God exists outside spacetime, and is unbounded by the laws of material existence.

Ah, one of these cop-outs that sounds so good but has absolutely no relevance or meaning at all.

Whether or not God exists outside of reality, a fundamentally ridiculous statement, he can still move objects in reality, can he not? Now, if he can, and if he cannot he would not be omnipotent, nullifying his status as "God", can he possibly create an object heavy enough to the point where he is unable to move it? It's a paradox, and it makes omnipotence very much unobtainable.

Next, we move on to omniscience.

Omniscience is incompatible with omnipotence, due to the fact that being able to see the future perfectly means that if you could change it, you would not have seen the future and would not be omniscient, whereas if you couldn't, you wouldn't be very omnipotent.

[Riiser-Larsen]

This is what I get confused on. How does it make more sense that there is an object which exists outside of space and time (space time is really different than that)and is capable of violating both conservation of matter and energy, than it does to believe that the carefully studied and several-times-proven explanation that scientists have might actually, just maybe be true.

God is not an object; He is a nonmaterial, nontemporal being. He does not exist within space or time, He exists outside this entire framework altogether. He does not violate conservation of matter and energy, because these are laws of the material universe of which He is wholly separate, and He is not composed of either matter or energy to begin with.

Okay, someone get a fire hose for me to wash my fucking brain off with.

You're essentially saying that god does not exist, because he is composed of nothing. What is he made of then? What is he!?

[Utceforp]

He's not just violating laws of reality, but also logic as well. Look up the Epicurean Trilemma. Also, if he's omnipotent, he's both an unstoppable force and an immovable object, which causes its own paradoxes.

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.
As for his omnipotence, His force is irresistible, but God cannot be said to be an immovable object, because He cannot be said to be an object; God exists outside spacetime, and is unbounded by the laws of material existence.

Epicurean Trilemma:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"

Also, there's the classic argument: Could God create a rock so powerful that nothing could break it? If he can't, he's not omnipotent. If he can, it means he himself cannot break it, and he's not omnipotent.

[The Tovian Way]

Actually, what I just did was demonstrate, using everything you just said about the null hypothesis, that your original claim, that the null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God, was false.

No you literally ignored everything I have just stated.

What you claimed was:

The null hypothesis (with regards to God's existence) is that God does not exist.
The null hypothesis has not been disproved.
It is not the case that a hypothesis which is not disproved is therefore proved.

From these, we can conclude:
It is not the case that the null hypothesis is proved.

And thus your original assertion "The null hypothesis necessitates the nonexistence of God" is false.

[Frisivisia]

God is not an object; He is a nonmaterial, nontemporal being. He does not exist within space or time, He exists outside this entire framework altogether. He does not violate conservation of matter and energy, because these are laws of the material universe of which He is wholly separate, and He is not composed of either matter or energy to begin with.

Okay, someone get a fire hose for me to wash my fucking brain off with.

You're essentially saying that god does not exist, because he is composed of nothing. What is he made of then? What is he!?

Magic.

[Utceforp]

If you wish to present an argument that God violates the laws of logic, please present them.
As for his omnipotence, His force is irresistible, but God cannot be said to be an immovable object, because He cannot be said to be an object; God exists outside spacetime, and is unbounded by the laws of material existence.

Ah, one of these cop-outs that sounds so good but has absolutely no relevance or meaning at all.

Whether or not God exists outside of reality, a fundamentally ridiculous statement, he can still move objects in reality, can he not? Now, if he can, and if he cannot he would not be omnipotent, nullifying his status as "God", can he possibly create an object heavy enough to the point where he is unable to move it? It's a paradox, and it makes omnipotence very much unobtainable.

Next, we move on to omniscience.

Omniscience is incompatible with omnipotence, due to the fact that being able to see the future perfectly means that if you could change it, you would not have seen the future and would not be omniscient, whereas if you couldn't, you wouldn't be very omnipotent.

God can see the future because he borrowed Utnapishtim's TARDIS-Ark. *nods*