Cosmologic Evolution Model Supporting Likelihood of a God's Existence

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Andy, Do you realise that you are making the fundamental mistake we see all the time from run of the mill theist theorists? That is, you are beginning with a premise and working your way backwards. Science and rational people work in the opposite direction. This is why we scoff at everything you put forward. Basically it's laughable and ill-informed bullshit.

Your full of shit.

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis, or model. Then the work begins to try to prove the hypothesis or model. If you look at what I'm doing I'm just presenting a model (ie. evolution for god or God model) and arguing its theoretical merits, nothing unscientific about that.

I believe what your referring to is what theist history scholars may be guilty of from time to time, starting with a premise (e.g. Jesus is god etc.) and then taking historical evidence and rationalizing it (sometimes incorrectly or unfairly) in a way which suits there arguments.

You are totally misapplying this to what i'm doing.

My God, must I explain everything to these intellectually inferior heathens???

[Sinfidel]

Andrew66 wrote

Your full of shit.

The scientific method starts with a hypothesis, or model. Then the work begins to try to prove the hypothesis or model. If you look at what I'm doing I'm just presenting a model (ie. evolution for god or God model) and arguing its theoretical merits, nothing unscientific about that.

I believe what your referring to is what theist history scholars may be guilty of from time to time, starting with a premise (e.g. Jesus is god etc.) and then taking historical evidence and rationalizing it (sometimes incorrectly or unfairly) in a way which suits there arguments.

You are totally misapplying this to what i'm doing.

My God, must I explain everything to these intellectually inferior heathens???

[Smellyoldgit]

Andy's skillz never cease to amaze:

Premise - goddidit.
Hypothesis - god exists, (coz I believe it)
can't prove the magic part,
therefore god evolved, then didit!
checkmate atheists!

[Davin]

See that it's really important to you to have this stupid idea put out onto the internet, so maybe you should make sure it's at least not irrational. I mean, it doesn't really matter to me if you listen to me or not, you can go around looking like an idiot if you really want to.

Andrew66 wrote

The rest of your statement is meaningless drivel, so I didn't quote it.

Oh shit, and I've been quoting your meaningless drivel all this time. It's OK, you may concede to more of my points.

[Kinich Ahau]

Your full of shit."

My full of shit, what?

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Andy's skillz never cease to amaze:

Premise - goddidit.
Hypothesis - god exists, (coz I believe it)
can't prove the magic part,
therefore god evolved, then didit!
checkmate atheists!

Not a small difference!

The main, most paramount objection to a theist view of God by Richard Dawkins in his God Delusion book is that complicated things (e.g. Swiss watches, jet airplanes, intelligent minds etc.) don't just randomly occur in nature, they must have been built or evolved over a temporal process.

The model I present provides a solution to this main objection.

By the way, I wouldn't go so far as to say my premise is "god did it" - I merely suggest that it is entirely conceivable that a god like being may have evolved and therefore may exist. What this being did or did not do is not predicted in the model.

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

Your full of shit."

My full of shit, what?

This is such a weak, poor comeback - that I will actually out of pity for poor KA not answer.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

See that it's really important to you to have this stupid idea put out onto the internet, so maybe you should make sure it's at least not irrational. I mean, it doesn't really matter to me if you listen to me or not, you can go around looking like an idiot if you really want to.

Oh shit, and I've been quoting your meaningless drivel all this time. It's OK, you may concede to more of my points.

I'm still waiting to see if your capable of saying one nice thing about me, or my ideas. It doesn't have to be a big deal, or compromise your partisan Atheist position - but show me your capable. If incapable, as I said before, you are too partisan, and your words loose their credibility.

You might say Andrew 66 is smart, Andrew 66 is creative, Andrew 66 has a cool idea, not provable but certainly thought provoking. etc.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

I'm still waiting to see if your capable of saying one nice thing about me, or my ideas.

Why? So far, all you've proven is that you're good at conceding to my arguments.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

Why? So far, all you've proven is that you're good at conceding to my arguments.

As I said, incapable. I guess I'm right again.

[Davin]

Why does that even matter? The reason I'm not capable of it, is because you have not shared anything worthy of saying something "nice" about.

Out of all your arguments, they are just like other shitty arguments we've seen several times, the only differences there are, do not fix the logical problems with them. Consider the following.

If it rains, then the street gets wet
The street is wet
:. Therefore it rained

If you change it to:

If Davin can't something nice about Andrew66, then Davin won't say nice things
Davin hasn't said nice things
:. Therefore Davin can't say nice things about Andrew66

The argument is still irrational.

Then you go an concede to every single challenge to your irrational arguments.

All your arguments seem like something an idiot would come up with to try to prove a preconceived conclusion. Like this one: You so badly want to prove that a god exists, that you used your pathetic understanding of evolution and ran with it. You didn't even try to understand what evolution is, but you heard about it

Until you clear up the logic issues in your arguments, there is no reason to take them seriously. Even if you cleared up the logic problems, until you provide evidence for your assertions, there is no reason to take them seriously.

So why does it matter whether I say something nice or not? I'm betting that it's an irrational reason.

[Kinich Ahau]

Andrew66 wrote

This is such a weak, poor comeback - that I will actually out of pity for poor KA not answer.

You do know the difference between Your and You're don't you?

Same grammatical mistakes, same logical mistakes over and over.

[Sinfidel]

Kinich Ahau wrote

You do know the difference between Your and You're don't you?

Same grammatical mistakes, same logical mistakes over and over.

It's the Home Skoolin! Betsy DEvos is gonna fix all that.

[Sinfidel]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Andy's skillz never cease to amaze:

Premise - goddidit.
Hypothesis - god exists, (coz I believe it)
can't prove the magic part,
therefore god evolved, then didit!
checkmate atheists!

It seemed reasonable to challenge this "hypothesis", but then Handy Andy turned to the big gun, William Lane Craig. Ooooh, scarey!

[Smellyoldgit]