Does Anybody Think They Actually Have Evidence for the Existence of God?

Response: Your response above is the exact example of another failed rebuttal with no proof, thus supporting the evidence that God exist.

 

Response: Once again, no newborn can create a checkerboard pattern, nor can you prove otherwise. Thus your argument of stating otherwise fails.

 

How can a new born create something that he does not know of?

 

Lol, it exposed your argument as a fallacy.

you have yet to show any evidence that god exists. only god of the gaps fallacies.

 

Uh, but that is YOUR CLAIM, why do I have to prove your claim right or wrong for you? Do you not understand that claimants have the burden of proof.

 

Response: Exactly. Showing that a lack of intelligence cannot create order. Thanks for the clarification.

 

I claim there is An Invisible Pink Panda living on my couch. Prove me wrong.

Since you cannot, ling live Invisible Pink Panda!

 

Response: Likewise.

 

Response: It is your claim that a newborn can create a checkerboard pattern. Thus according to your own logic, since it is your claim, you have to prove it.

 

As I was trying to post before this forum took yet another nosedive..

Yep, when it comes to arguing for the existence of a god, the believers arrogantly make the existence of their god the default position, invariably trying to tell us that we have to prove some alternative to their smug religious explanations for things. Shifting the burden of proof is a natural way for someone without a valid argument to attempt to "win" a debate.

 

I would have to, but it really doesn't play into my argument at all. It is a basis for your argument and I do not believe you. Unless you can provide proof of that assertion, I still won't.

 

Ignorance and lack of intelligence is two separate items. You do not know this?

 

Not knowing what a checkerboard pattern is is called ignorance, not lack of intelligence.

Forget about Evolution or Abiogenesis, I suggest you go learn the English Language first and foremost.

 

Response: Stating that I have to prove that a newborn cannot create a checkerboard pattern implies that you believe that a newborn actually can. Otherwise, there would be no reason to ask for proof. As such, I leave such a claim to dwell in its own delusion. For any reasonable person can see the absurdity and delusion in claiming that a newborn can create a checkerboard pattern. Thus strengthening the evidence that God exist.

 

Response: Stating that I have to prove that a newborn cannot create a checkerboard pattern implies that you believe that a newborn actually can. Otherwise, there would be no reason to ask for proof. As such, I leave such a claim to dwell in its own delusion. For any reasonable person can see the absurdity and delusion in claiming that a newborn can create a checkerboard pattern. Thus strengthening the evidence that God exist.

Furthermore, the logil proof that something is impossible is the fact that there is no logical proof that it is possible. Thus your inability to provide evidence that a newborn can create a checkerboard pattern as ossible is proof that it is imossible from your own actions.

 

Response: Yet not knowing a checkerboard pattern due to a lack of intelligence is not called ignorance. I suggest you pick up a kindergarten class asap.

 

Not knowing is the defination of Ignorance

Ignorance

You need a grasp on the English language.

 

this is meaningless. I've already exposed your entire argument as a fallacy.

 

Still waiting a response to this:

 

Response: Not knowing is also a lak of intelligence. You need to stop embarrassing youself by showing you can't even comprehend english.

 

Why so certain? Natural Selection is not chance - it acts on chance to ensure that, statistically speaking, greater complexity will survive to reproduce itself, and so make it possible for still greater complexity to arise as a consequence. Life had relatively humble beginnings, but thanks to the process of evolution by natural selection, it has grown in complexity and diversified greatly. It is, as Richard Dawkins eloquently describes it, climbing Mt. Improbable. Evolution is a gradual process, far more gradual than we in our 80-year or so lifespans are able to perceive and comprehend directly, though we have obviously been able to deduce it from the evidence at hand, and with research and testing comes still more evidence which resoundingly supports evolution by natural selection. At the same time, this testing and research turns up no signs of an "intelligent creator." Arguments for one are invariably arguments from incredulity and ignorance, not fact-based arguments which best describe what is actually observed and testable.

 

Response: Since the cause of natural selection is not intelligence, then it is based on chance. As a result, natural selection is false, since chance cannot originate order or intelligence. Instead, it causes disorder. Thus the order in the universe and intelligent life stems from intelligent design, and the designer is Allah(God).

 

Stupidity

Stupid and Ignornant are two seperate things.

 

Response: doesn't change the fact that not knowing is also a lack of intelligence.

 

There are no facts to change. Stupid and Ignornant are two seperate things.