by jimwalton » Sun May 12, 2019 7:21 am
> I only wanted to see what I wanted to see?
That was my assessment from reading your responses, and your instant rejection of mine, though I appealed to truth and evidence.
> But please, enlighten me with this evidence you talk about. Cite your sources.
I asked you first, because this is always the way in my conversations with dozens of atheists. I simply asked you to take a position and substantiate it, and, if you're like the others, I'll get close to nothing. But I'm open to seeing your evidences for the positions you take.
> Responding to your comment, I’ve concluded atheism through astronomy as a start.
Thank you. You've given me something, and I appreciate that. You still haven't told me what position you're taking, but have alluded to an "evidence" here. What is it from astronomy that gives evidence for your position (presumably that theism does not. I would guess it's fair to say that you consider astronomy to be more in support of atheism than theism)?
Logic states that anything that had a beginning had a causative mechanism outside of itself, since nothing can self-generate. The grandness of the universe (assuming you believe in the Big Bang) would tell us this causative mechanism is outside of time, not subject to the laws of nature, and is powerful. You'll have to explain how astronomy gives more credibility and evidence to the atheist position than the theistic one. I'm looking forward to the conversation.
I recently had a conversation with Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, the astronomer who is in charge of the Hubble Telescope, who is also a Christian. I'm really curious what evidences from astronomy led you in the opposite direction.
> And not being able to understand the logical fallacies in the minds of those who are theists and say they “know” god is real.
It's impossible from this comment to know to what you are referring. Can you elaborate? Thanks.
> I only wanted to see what I wanted to see?
That was my assessment from reading your responses, and your instant rejection of mine, though I appealed to truth and evidence.
> But please, enlighten me with this evidence you talk about. Cite your sources.
I asked you first, because this is always the way in my conversations with dozens of atheists. I simply asked you to take a position and substantiate it, and, if you're like the others, I'll get close to nothing. But I'm open to seeing your evidences for the positions you take.
> Responding to your comment, I’ve concluded atheism through astronomy as a start.
Thank you. You've given me something, and I appreciate that. You still haven't told me what position you're taking, but have alluded to an "evidence" here. What is it from astronomy that gives evidence for your position (presumably that theism does not. I would guess it's fair to say that you consider astronomy to be more in support of atheism than theism)?
Logic states that anything that had a beginning had a causative mechanism outside of itself, since nothing can self-generate. The grandness of the universe (assuming you believe in the Big Bang) would tell us this causative mechanism is outside of time, not subject to the laws of nature, and is powerful. You'll have to explain how astronomy gives more credibility and evidence to the atheist position than the theistic one. I'm looking forward to the conversation.
I recently had a conversation with Dr. Jennifer Wiseman, the astronomer who is in charge of the Hubble Telescope, who is also a Christian. I'm really curious what evidences from astronomy led you in the opposite direction.
> And not being able to understand the logical fallacies in the minds of those who are theists and say they “know” god is real.
It's impossible from this comment to know to what you are referring. Can you elaborate? Thanks.