What was revealed?

Explain how it is a strawman.

Prove it.

And Jesus belief is simply one more. I agree with the Jews he was a false messiah. But that is theology and so was your bleet above.

You're not a llama you're a mule. Hee Haw. I say this because you are stubborn in your view with blinders on your eyes so you can't see reality.

Last time:

The Mule says: there is a god.

The atheist says: Show me.

The mule says: I can't, just believe me.

The atheist says: I don't believe you or any of your ancient writings by savages who were ignorant of the physical world. I want proof.

The mule says: You have faith.

Again mister mule, if you are charged with a crime say eating apples from a fruit stand and no one comes forward with any proof there can be no charge or claim.

The claim - The mule ate the apples.

The evidence - apples were missing or the clerk can't count and this mule was standing there. No one saw the mule eat the apples. There were no apple drippings coming from the mule's mouth. There were no apple pieces on the ground by the mule.

The result - no charge as this is no evidence.

Or this:

The mule is running down a road at 50 in a 55 speed limit. He is not stopped for speeding. He is not charged with a crime. There is no evidence that he was breaking traffic laws, littering maybe but we'll ignore the poop.

Or this:

The mule is in Los Angles. Someone in London dies. The mule has never been to London. He doesn't know anyone in England. There is no evidence the mule is involved and so he is not charged.

*edit* Added this:

The point is if I deny your claim and say I don't believe it's not faith. In all cases he that makes a claim must prove it. If he has no proof it is on faith. There is no such thing as faith in not believing.

A 'revelation' is still a mental experience, and as such can never be proved to be a 'real' revelation, a 'real' communication from a supernatural entity. All we can have is an internal experience in our mind, which in itself can never be 'proof' that the content of the 'revelation' is not a delusion, no matter how convincing it feels - that conviction that it must be 'real' is just another feeling, which can be just a much mistaken as any other thought arising in our finite and imperfect minds.

The actual existence of Jesus' himself is far from a certainty. The incredible arrogance of anyone clinging to one religion to claim that theirs is manifestly the only 'true' one, when they should be aware of competing claims with every bit as much justification form personal 'revelation', is breathtaking.

To then accuse scientists and atheists of arrogance when they profess 'we don't know' is speaks of the truly twisted thought processes that the dedicated believer is capable of, indeed requires in order to maintain their position in the face of reality.

Anyway God cannot be an ultimate explanation for the origin of the universe, since he is even greater tan the universe, and presumably, by your 'logic' requires an even greater explanation for His origin.

Whereas systematic observation ('Science') shows us that causes do NOT need to be greater that what they initiate, so 'first cause' need only be the most infinitesimal twitch in a base level energy field or whatever you may imagine is the minimum state of existence. Quantum theory seems to show that we can never have perfect emptiness and stillness, and a twitch which just happens to be big enough to cross some threshhold which initiates a Big Bang style Universe 'creating' event is all that is conceptually required.

Any assumption that conscious beings can only be initiated by even grander consciousnesses is a logical hole.

The 'anthropic principle' is a faulty concept based on massive assumptions about just what would be a plausible range over which any of the fundamental properties of the universe could vary, without which any assignment of probability is impossible. Also most commentators have only considered the effect of varying such 'constants' one at a time. When researchers have investigated the possibility of some combination of different values being compatible with a Universe lasting long enough and having some analogue of stars and planets, compatible with emergence of something we would see as an intelligent life form, things look nowhere near as unlikely. Considering the current sketchy state of our understanding of possibilities wildly different from our present 'Universe', there almost certainly exist even more possible 'Universes' in which 'life' could emerge.

So you, llama, are the arrogant deluded one, to imagine that everyone not sharing your particular world-view, whether atheist or believers in some alternative supernaturalism, must be deluded. In some ways, the ancient Gods of Greece were more plausible than your idea of an infinite omnipotent being.

Bleeeat!

A hypocrite is a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. I never said I won't insult some one nor am I against it, it just takes a lot to make me turn to anger. Llamas are very peaceable, loving, patient and furry individuals. I also owe deludedgod a few more insults to match his to mine maybe I'll cash them in maybe I won't. I never said deludedgod was not part of the scientific community I said he supports a rather unpopular hypothesis that doesn't make him go against his peers.

1+1=2

Electrons

No shitball

It is appearant that you are fucking another llama.

Oh wait no. You are the brown one, right? My error.

So answer my question insane one. Where's your proof for your imaginary friend you call gawd?

Huh?

Seriously lama isn’t trying to answer normally anymore . Seriously lama is a troll he will waist our time and post nonsense to piss us off.

To mysicriver how do you assume there is something ant this something is a being ? Do you understand the concepts and mechanisms of a being and consciousness (O I feel so dirty for saying this) ? Well I might interest you in neuro-psychology or in artificial intelligence or programming. And I can assure you after understanding programmable systems or the assembly of the human brain you realize that you don’t really exist nether exists south a concept like “being” we are simple functioning mechanisms and if you start understanding how you can assemble and manipulate them you comprehend why a being without the write software and memorizing computability’s is impossible and will never function.

Or maybe you screech in the internet for a chat bot ? It’s a program capable of having a conversation with you seminal to a human and I have seen humans who are les intelligent or comprehensible then chat bots so even if there is a magical ghost its definitely not in humans.

 After you understand this you will understand why there is no gost in the machine and we all are simple nanobotic  machines.

The only reason why I say Membranes are the leading contender for an explanation of our Universe origin is because String Theory is the only theory I know of that is a unifying theory. String Theory encompases the classical universe and the quantum world into a working formula that makes accurate predictions to both scales and it also solves the gravity problem on the micro scale. Membranes are predicted by String Theory so I go with it. September 10^th we will see if String Theory is just fancy math or at least more credible. The CERN accelerator should on the 10^th conduct it's first test and smash two particles so the bits come flying out. If the BOSON is detected for a brief moment in time then String Theory is proven that it's not just fancy math but can make real world predictions that are testable. BOSONS are also predicted by String Theory. Any ways we shall see.

About the self replicating magically mutating molecule is the hypothesis Richardo Dawkins likes to use. It's the reductionists dream or shall I say fantasy. This self replicating mutator was suppose to evolve out of chemical evolution. This rife is hard to swallow I know and I don't buy it for a moment but I just wanted to correct you here. The self replicating mutating molecule hypothesis is part of the evolutionary theory of natural selection. Membranes are predicted by String Theory and membranes can be any size including sizes so huge or small they are impossible to fathom with the human mind. Sizes huge enough to easily give rise to many many universes with each ultra dimensional collision of the undulating waves of the Membranes surface.

If we find the cause to the effect we name the Universe that only raises 1 more question.. where did the cause come from. If the cause is material then it itself is an effect to another cause. As long as you keep evoking material explanations to our Universe you will never escape the infinite regress because all physical things need causes. To put a stop to this fallacy you need to transcend the material because only the immaterial is eternal and thus with out a cause, eternal things never had a beginning so it never had or needed a cause to explain itself. Wrap your brain around that one.

Like I said our true God was not an invention and he was observed through Jesus Christ. This is what seperates Christianity from other false religions other religions are about works and blind faith. Christianity is about grace and evidence based faith. God revealed himself but not in such a way that demands your loyalty to him the same way gravity demands your attention. The whole purpose of life is to find your own way through it and learn lessons from it and to find and love God not to have that love forced on you by overbearing proofs of his existence or else it defeats the purpose of living on Earth our boot camp for our soul.

No evidence for Atheism has been present here in this response it wasn't even discussed. I'm asking for evidence for Atheism and we are getting off topic. Atheist 0 – Llama 1

You have presented NO evidence for the reality of your God or even Jesus. Naked assertions don't count.

'Revelation' is just another word for an idea, we can never establish that some idea actually justifies that description until we see if it actually 'works', ie actually provides us with real novel insights into the universe, ie external (outside our heads) EVIDENCE.

DNA and RNA molecules DO mutate and replicate - no magic there -  this is direct observation. Simpler systems cannot be ruled out by your lack of understanding of the science. The components of these molecules (amino acids) have been observed to occur naturally. Therefore no magic required for abiogenesis, even if we don't know the detailed sequence - nothing in the minimal steps required requires magic , UNLIKE the Theist position.

Even if there is something to your un-substantiated claim that the ultimate 'cause' of everything must be something that has always existed - 'time' is probably more complex dimension than that - you have presented zero evidence that it needs to be anything more than some sort of minimal energy field, randomly manifesting as virtual entities (particles), as pointed to by Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle. IOW 'consciousness' of any kind NOT REQUIRED. Randomness is the ultimate creative principle, filtered thru the constraints of some set of physical 'laws', analogous to the laws of logic, which flow from minimal principles like the 'law of non-contradiction'. Complexity easily arises from simplicity, in fact without a 'simple' set of ground rules, it is hard to build coherent structures. Try building a house if all the bricks are different shapes.

Random mutation of small set of underlying elements, such as DNA composed of four elementary building blocks, filtered thru the constraints of the environment, eg "Natural Selection", seems be a deeply significant model of how truly novel solutions to problems like that of survival and reproduction of living organisms, far surpassing what conscious analysyis of the problem can produce. Even we resort to the 'brainstorming' model when seeking to come up with truly novel solution

This absence of evidence, your failure to support your position with anything more than such unsupported claims, is all the evidence required for us to assert the reasonableness of the Atheist position, namely that there is no reason to believe in a God.

It's not up to us to decide which one, this isn't “Let's make a deal”. God had already revealed himself to us through different ways. You will find most atheists will disagree with you, believing in naturalistic origins is the very crux of an atheists belief system. I'm not concerned about biblical scriptures, I know astrology is correct and honest. The 7 days of creation can be interpreted in many ways and only fundamentalists on both sides of the atheist, theist camp will read it literally. The 7 days could have easily been a metaphore for an ancient people who had no concept of deep time. The old why can't the Universe be eternal is an old childish whine made by ignorant atheists. The Universe has an age at it's about 13.8 billion years old, that is not eternal. The second law of thermo dynamics states that the Universe is ever increasing into a disordered state or to say the Universe is exhausting it's finite supply of useable energy this means the Universe can't be eternal or it would have exhausted it's energy an infinity ago in the past.

No evidence for Atheism was giving here by the poster. Ridicule mixed in with false facts doesn't prove any thing.

What ever you want to believe Atheism means to you I don't care, I only care when you tell me your Atheism is true and my Theism is false, then I say to you show me your evidence that leads to this proof and you demonstrated none. So if you say Atheism is you faith then I say “cool” but if you say Atheism is fact then I say “show me the evidence”.

“Because there's no such thing as immaterial” that is an easily disproven presumption. Shall I direct you to your thoughts and consciousness? How about if I point your attention to a Photon? What about gravity and all the other immaterial forces that glue our Universe together? Immaterial means to be with out matter, it doesn't mean to be fantasy.

Some people believe UFO's (presumed alien spacecraft) exists and some don't. This is up for debate and there is incredible evidence captured on film but whatever was captured on film was clearly not immaterial. Immaterial does not mean make believe.

Pretty simple, I asked for the evidence for Atheism not to discuss God and religion.

“because I don't need evidence for atheism” BINGO! THANK YOU! Finally an honest answer. This logical conclusion can't be escaped.. to believe in something with out the evidence is faith, blind faith. You can try and weasel your way around it with buts and personally claimed exemptions but your only entitled to your opinions not to your own facts.

If Atheism is true then one would expect to see more evidence for it being true. A Godless Universe should be ripe with evidence of it's godlessness. Your demand of proof for Atheism is so weak it's not even allowed in a Court of Law. No prosecutor (at least here in America) can present a case on the premise of a lack of evidence to prove the case he is making. Try and let this be your thesis on a paper your doing on whatever, it would go something like this...

“There for I have proven Thing A to be true on the lack of evidence for Thing B”

Negatives being unprovable is an old lie. I can make many negative claims and prove then to be true for example. “There has never been a female USA president” That's a negative claim yet I can prove to you that negative claim is true. Also I can simple turn it around on you and use your own logical fallacy against you, for example “There is no evidence for a Godless created Universe” That's a negative claim and since according to you I can't disprove negative claims therefor I conclude “The Universe must have been created by God”. This is your illogical conclusion just turned around. I hope you see the fallacy of your argument.

Also you can't have your cake and eat it too. How can you make an Atheistic claim and not be burdened to prove it?

PS – Finely Tuned Universe is evidence for our Universe created for a purpose and that purpose is intelligent life.

PSS – Of course with no evidence at all you will dismiss that claim and rely on science fiction instead and claim multiple Universes... what ever.

If I claim a lack of evidence for God, which is the basic 'claim' of the Atheist, then that claim can only be countered by providing some evidence FOR God.

It's that simple.

So Llama, where is it? It really is up to you now.

Hmmm. (scratches behind ear in mild puzzlement)

Llama language a bit thin these days ?

One bleeeat is all I get ?

Hmmm. *further weensy wonderment*

Let's see. My post was #26, camelid's in response was #107...

Geesh... posts sure travel slowly, don't they ?

Long Llama convention this year, camelid???