Am i the only one?

No, what gets me frustrated is that you twist atheists positions to fit your utterances.

You are an intellectual fraud.

OK, Einstein, how would you distinguish what has been set in motion from that which had been directly created? What's your "guess."

As with that "guess" hoseshit, which you came up with because you were getting hammered about the concept of belief, and as is pointed out above, you just attempt to twist words to fit you simplistic and naïve and unthinking claims about logic.

Guess and believe are not cognate. But the question of how one distinguishes obvious evidence and random coincidence is even more crucial than you apparently realize.

Logic is not your friend, Frank, because you don't recognize it when it comes along.

Logic does not dictate that if there were a god, one would see the evidence all around, unless you can tell us how one would distinguish the result of natural processes deriving from a cosmogony with no god, and the result of natural proesses in a cosmogony set in motion by a god.

So, no, one would not see the evidence all around for lack of a means to make a distinction. It is because you apparently are not able to see a basic logical objection like this that i consider what you spew around here, with your trade mark certainty, to be simplistic, naïve and unthinking. It appears that your theses always involve certainty on your part, while denying it on the part of anyone else.

. It appears that your thesis always involve certainty on your part, while denying it on the part of anyone else.

Quote:

. It appears that your thesis always involve certainty on your part, while denying it on the part of anyone else.

Frank's superior intellect provides him with the "gall" to tell everybody else they're wrong.

We can depend on Frank to parrot this idea for the foreseeable future.

I got off his merry-go-round knowing that I'm not missing much new information.

Give me an example of something that is "intricately made" suggesting that it was designed by an intelligence.

One can always tell that Frank is fresh out of ideas, and cannot respond to criticism when he trots out the anger routine. I'll bet the thinks he's clever.

You're sunk by language again Frank. That simple-minded "whatever is, is" BS won't fly here, because evidence has a specific meaning. It means a body of facts, a body of information. So vague bullshit like your "whatever is, is" doesn't quality. If something is not evident, if it is not clearly to be seen, it is not evidence. If one cannot tell whether or not the naturalistic world is a product of a cosmogony from a god, or a cosmogony with no god, then it constitutes no evidence for either proposition.

Your attempts ar logic are pathetic, and usually involve, as was already noted, twisting words. Evidence is not working out for you here as a word you can manipulate to fit your simple-minded thesis.

I have no doubt that now that you're starting to lose it, it's only a matter of time until you trot out the personal slurs and the puerile images.

When you try that feeble anger BS, that's usually the first sign that your rhetoric, never very elevated to begin with, is headed downhill.

OK Einstein, explain how one can tell the difference between the natural world as result of the laws of physics and chemistry with no god, and the natural world as a result of the laws of physics and chemistry with a god. This should be good--or just pathetic, one of the two.

As predicted...

...you rely on the anger BS and trot out puerile images.

I seriously doubt that you'll produce a plausible answer to the question above.

We've been discussing evidence Frank, that was a pretty feeble dodge--and, of course, you've descended to name-calling. So, you don't have a plausible answer. Bye, clown.

You are a liar, and you are a liar because you cannot accept that your fairy stories are not inerrant. The waters did not dry up, the river was diverted. The modifier "eventually" is not used in your phony baloney prophecies. Babylon was not desolated, it was simply abandoned.

You're self-delusion, and because you cling to your delusions so desperately, you have also become a liar. You have detailed putative prophecies, and not a tenth of what they say ever came to pass. You are apparently of the "two out of three ain't bad" school--it's not good enough to get around the abject failures of you so-called prophecies.

You are a liar.

This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus,
Whose right hand I have taken hold of
To subdue nations before him,
To disarm* kings,
To open before him the double doors,
So that the gates will not be shut:
 2 “Before you I will go,
And the hills I will level.
The copper doors I will break in pieces,
And the iron bars I will cut down.(Isaiah 45: 1,2)

The One saying to the deep waters, ‘Be evaporated,
And I will dry up all your rivers (Isaiah 44:27)

There is a devastation on her waters, and they will be dried up.
For it is a land of graven images,
And because of their frightful visions they keep acting with madness.
39 Therefore, the desert creatures will dwell with the howling animals,
And in her the ostriches will dwell.
She will never again be inhabited,
Nor will she be a place of residence throughout all generations.(Jeremiah 50:38,39)

And Babylon will become piles of stones,
A lair of jackals,
An object of horror and something to whistle at,
Without an inhabitant. (Jeremiah 52:37)

Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, who will not regard silver; and as for gold, they will not delight in it. Also their bows will dash the young men to pieces, and they will have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye will not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, will be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It will never be inhabited, nor will it be settled from generation to generation; nor will the Arabian pitch tents there, nor will the shepherds make their sheepfolds there” (Isaiah:13:17-20)