The miracle of God creating the first chicken with eggs inside it

So, now you want us to prove to you that humans exist too ?
When did anyone here claim that they didn’t ?
[quote] Bullshit
The target of the evidence is not Glasses-human
The target of the evidence is existence- god
Existence does not lead to the conclusion
God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger

You can skip the straw man, I’m not biting .
M
@DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @SW-User @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @DocSavage @newjaninev2 @TheoreticSkeptic @Emosaur @LeopoldBloom
@HollyW @TheoreticSkeptic @Thodsis @Mithraia @deadgerbil @Dshhh
@HeidiA @ImperialAerosolKidFromEP @lacrossegirl25 @Rhode57 @ElwoodBlues
@Convivial @BiasForAction @Abstraction @mcane @allygator18 [@ DrPhibes] [@ Adstar] @jehova @TelegramSam


Hi everyone, the list above is my invitation to you all to join in the discussion. If you are not happy with it, then you can opt to not receive any notification, by cancelling the notification feature.
---------------------


@DocSavage

Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.

Let us work together to un-decipher your long long long long example of a non physical evidence.

You are banking on nothing as a non physical evidence for God.

Wrong: because nothing is neither non physical nor physical, it does not exist, so it cannot connect to God.


You see, evidence is first before anything else, something that exists and is connected to the target of the evidence that man is seeking to locate, thus eye-glasses are connected to man, and when a seeker wants to determine whether some human is or was in a location, the presence of eye-glasses points out to him, yes there is or was a human present, and all he has to do is to search thoroughly for more instances of a human presence, if he could not come to the human, then he could be certain that the human of concern had left the present area of investigation - now, next step: seek where he might have moved to, perhaps overseas?


Do you agree with me that evidence works because there is a connection between the evidence and the target of the evidence? For example, eye-glasses and man, for only man use eye-glasses, no other living things use made by man eye-glasses.[/quote]
I say:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).

You say:
I’ve answered your question.


Now, I tell you again:
I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence (in concise words).


In concise words means not more than 35 words, else you are into malingering.







yrger · 80-89, M
@DocSavage

I am still waiting to read your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence.


---------------------


DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.

-----------------------

DocSavage · M
your clear example of a non physical evidence, and how it works to bring you to the target of your non physical evidence. -Yrger

That’s easy. In fact you are depending heavily on it. Evidence is information. Testable physical facts.
Non physical evidence is in the evaluation of that information.
Example: Something can not come from Nothing is an accepted conclusion. Ergo , god must have created it . Ergo : ultimately we land into God the permanent self-existent creator and operator of all things not Himself. -Yrger . You are violating your own conclusion. Right from the start, without evidence.
The non physical evidence is the lack of physical evidence leading to that conclusion. You have one fact. The universe exist. You are unaware of the actual cause, and conclude there must be a god like being. That is not fact, because it cannot be shown to be physically possible. While other evidence shows that it is impossible.
If you follow the evidence, and exclude the unsupported, your chances of getting it right greatly improve. Since nothing can be proven 100% probability is the best you can have, until it is proven wrong. God is the biggest improbability there is.
What have you got to conclude god exist ? The same thing all religions have, faith and ignorance. There is however solid evidence for why chickens, babies , and roses exist, without ultimately a god. The non physical evidence is the most probable, and is against you.
+ 0 · Reply · Translate · 8 hrs ago

DocSavage · M
[@yrger/bonehead
What’s the matter, too few brain cells to make it pass 35 words ? I noticed you’re down from 50. You’re sinking fast.
+ 0 · Reply · 3 hrs ago · Edit ·

DocSavage · M
I’ve answered your question. Now answer mine. Why must your god be permanent. Once the process starts, it’s self running . It no longer requires a god to operate. Needs no guidance, or intent. Like random mutations.
You need both halves or the claim to make it work, we don’t need either.