Prove that God is imaginary

[IrishMauddib]

The fact that entropy shows the universe is a created thing that did not exist a finite time ago.

Actually you have misinterpreted the conclusions here. What we know is the universe in its CURRENT FORM only existed for a finite time. Not only that but since “time” is a property of its CURRENT FORM such a statement only makes sense within the confines of that form.

What we do not know is if the singularity the current universe expanded from existed for a finite “time” or not, nor do we even know if referring to its existence in terms of time even makes sense.

So I am afraid all discussions of “first cause” are in fact based on nothing but wanton baseless speculation about the attributes of a singularity we know literally nothing about.

Subsequently just saying God is imaginary doesn't make God imaginary. Yet low and behold that seems to be the only response atheists are giving in this thread.

However this is not what is being said, just your strawman of what is being said.

If there is no evidence, data, reasons or arguments to lend credence to the existence of an entity then the existence of the entity must be dismissed until such time as there is.

That granted, you have not offered any evidence, data, arguments or reasons for the existence of the entity save to insist that there is such evidence. However saying there is evidence is not the same as presenting it.

Thankfully. As I can imagine our courts would be comical places if it was. “Your honour, I move that there is a ton of evidence that the defendant in fact killed the victim. The prosecution rests”.

[End Bringer]

Endbringer,

The fact that other people discuss it and write books about it does not mean I have to prove the proposition untrue at all. These books do not change the fact that nothing is on offer to suggest that the proposition is true.

It does show you have to make a bit more effort than casual dismissal. You have a positively asserted world-view, and that does indeed mean you have a certain burden of proof to meet.

There are 1000s of books out there on the subject of Homeopathy too. This does not mean I am required to show that homeopathy is false either or grant it even the smallest modicum of credence. Why? Simply because there is not a single reason on offer to suggest that it works.

No, but at least your blatant arrogance is consistent.

As I said however after 20 years of asking and delving I have not been shown a shred of a scrap of data, evidence, arguments or reasons to lend even a modicum of credence to the claim that there is a non-human intelligence at work in the creation and subsequent maintenance of the universe as we know it.

Then I highly doubt you've really been looking. Or you've been looking with a blind-fold already on.

Remember one rule and you might do better: Saying there is evidence is not the same as presenting the evidence.

Saying there isn't, doesn't mean there isn't either. Funny how you seem to give out rules that either directly apply to you, or the opposite does as well.

Actually you have misinterpreted the conclusions here. What we know is the universe in its CURRENT FORM only existed for a finite time. Not only that but since “time” is a property of its CURRENT FORM such a statement only makes sense within the confines of that form.

See? You do find evidence. You just dispute it so you don't have to face a conclusion you don't want to accept. Especially with such a lame excuse. Obviously all we know of the universe is in it's CURRENT FORM, and with the CURRENT EVIDENCE it leads to a conclusion of First Cause. Appealing to the unknown and what problably never was as a reason to deny CURRENT EVIDENCE smacks of denial and desperation.

What we do not know is if the singularity the current universe expanded from existed for a finite “time” or not, nor do we even know if referring to its existence in terms of time even makes sense.

So I am afraid all discussions of “first cause” are in fact based on nothing but wanton baseless speculation about the attributes of a singularity we know literally nothing about.

We do know. Especially as you so clearly stated that if "time" is a property of the universe's CURRENT FORM, then as the universe didn't exist at one point then that same property in it's CURRENT FORM did not exist either. And it helps that infinite regress is logically impossible because an infinite set of events in the past means we'd never come to this point in the present. But like I said, it's just a lame excuse to deny what the evidence is telling you. Which makes me consider my theory of you "looking" with a blind-fold already on for 20 years more probable.

However this is not what is being said, just your strawman of what is being said.

If there is no evidence, data, reasons or arguments to lend credence to the existence of an entity then the existence of the entity must be dismissed until such time as there is.

Sadly for you, that IS what's being said. Nor can you so casually brush it off as "no evidence" being presented because as we clearly see with your address of First Cause, when evidence IS presented you just look for any excuse to deny it. That's why it's long been shown that "evidence" is just a pretext with a-theists.

That granted, you have not offered any evidence, data, arguments or reasons for the existence of the entity save to insist that there is such evidence. However saying there is evidence is not the same as presenting it.

Thankfully. As I can imagine our courts would be comical places if it was. “Your honour, I move that there is a ton of evidence that the defendant in fact killed the victim. The prosecution rests”.

I wonder what it's like to be so contrary in life. You claim no evidence is presented, dispute the presented evidence of First Cause, then go on to say no evidence was ever presented. To keep with your analogy - "Your honour seeing how the prosecution rested it's case I move for a dismissal seeing how the prosecution never showed up to court, nor did you judge." Too amusing. 

[none]

God that is defined is God that is inexplicable and God that is inexplicable is God that is defined and both are equally imagined without reality, but if reality exists the reality of the equally imagined is dependent upon imagination not reality given the nature of perception.

I like it.  It takes a dictionary, two thesauruses and a degree in philosophy to break down, but I like it. 

and looking up at the sky I wonder who would need a dictionary, two thesauruses, and a degree in philosophy....damn atheists...

[IrishMauddib]

It does show you have to make a bit more effort than casual dismissal. You have a positively asserted world-view, and that does indeed mean you have a certain burden of proof to meet.

Which world view have I positively asserted? All I have asserted here is that if someone comes to me with a proposition that they bring to me without a shred of evidence, data, arguments or reasons to support it, then I dismiss that proposition until such time as it does. I have asserted nothing else so I am not sure what you think requires proof?

No, but at least your blatant arrogance is consistent.

Insults demean only the insulter, NEVER the insulted, so you let no one down but yourself here. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing. Using insults to pander to some internal idea that saying something is better than saying nothing at all demeans no one else but the insulter. Raise your game here please.

Then I highly doubt you've really been looking. Or you've been looking with a blind-fold already on.

Of course Of course. It is not that you HAVE no evidence or have consistently been talking about it rather than actually presenting it. It is just that I have been blind to it. Of course. Not. You either have evidence for me or you do not. You either intend to present it or you do not. Hiding behind childish insults like above or comments like this to try and get out of presenting it doesn't suddenly mean there is evidence to be presented. If you have it.... present it. Simple as.

But that tactic is a well known one in all areas of charlatanism. If you have no evidence or supporting arguments, then instead try and make it look like the other party is somehow incapable of understanding any evidence you may  have but have thus far been unable to present.

Saying there isn't, doesn't mean there isn't either. Funny how you seem to give out rules that either directly apply to you, or the opposite does as well.

False as I never MADE such a claim. If I were to say "There is no evidence" the onus of proof would indeed be on me to prove that. However I simply do not know if there is evidence or not. The claim I am making is that after 20 years of looking for it and asking for it I have not been shown a single scrap of a shred of it. Nor have you moved to show me any either. What I have  been shown instead, consistently as it happens, is a) people resorting to childish angry hateful insults like you did above and b) people making excuse after excuse for why they do not have to present evidence such as you did above and c) Saying over and over there is loads of evidence while not presenting one single shred of it.

See? You do find evidence.

False I have not been presented with any evidence for the proposition at hand, nor have you moved to provide any.

with the CURRENT EVIDENCE it leads to a conclusion of First Cause.

False again. The current evidence is that time was not an attribute "before" the big bang. Causality is time based, so no time means no "causes". Therefore the entire "first cause" argument is non-sensical at this time. Unless of course you can provide any evidence of causality existing independent of time, in which case I would have to re-evaluate my position. Since you have not done this then your "first cause" argument is just baseless speculation about an event you, and I, know literally nothing about.

But like I said, if you can show me how causality can exist entirely independent of time then I would be grateful if you would return and tell me about it, stopping of course to pick up your Nobel Prize in physics before you get here.