Atheist requests “define your god and explain a method to test for it”

Atheism steam.jpg

On Facebook, I posted a link to my article Reply to Atheist on “Was God unjust for killing the Canaanites?”

Utterly ignoring the article’s and thus, the FB post’s context, an Atheist named Charlie Reid commented thusly
You say science cannot prove your particular god exists, can you define your god and explain a method to test for it.

By the way, I never stated that science cannot prove my particular God, the one and only one, exists.

I, True Freethinker, replied
The scientific method is premise on biblical theology, of course, and can point us in the direction of that the universe was created via design.
Why do you think that so many Atheists opt for the fantasy tale of a multiverse—their supernatural realm? It is because with ever mounting evidence of design, they are desperate to keep pushing their “faith” and refuse to augment it when inconvenient fact emerge.
By definition God is the highest being.
Next, I suspect you will run into your usual problems.

I made that closing statement since Charlie and I have gone round and round (and round) numerous times.

Charlie Reid
Strange assertion, please explain how the scientific method is premised (your favourite word) on biblical theology.
Never seen any data to suggest the universe was created or designed, can you supply evidence please.
Didn’t know so many atheists opt for a multiverse thought most would say they didn’t know, i’m no cosmologist but it sounds feasible to me. Can you provide evidence this hypothesis is fantasy and pray tell what you believe to be the case.
Which inconvenient facts?
“God is the highest being” is that it? Why is there so many denominations if it was that simple? Perhaps you don’t want to elaborate as you know your particular gods attributes, as described in the bible, render it an illogical entity.

True Freethinker
If you have never seen any such data then start or keep looking. By faith, you believe in a universe that came about from nothing, by nothing, to nothing and for nothing.
Yet, the universe is based on mathematical principles, consists of interactive/symbiotic parts, (that truth, logic, and ethics are accidental as is our ability to be cognizant of them, employ them, etc.), etc.—and just replying that such is by accident would not be a cogent reply.
The premise of the scientific method was that a rational creator created a rational creation and populated with rational beings who could rationally discern it.
Of course, multiverse sounds feasible to you since it offers you a way to run away from the evidence of intelligent design and also because you are used to believing in things by “faith” without evidence—the multiverse is your supernatural realm.
The inconvenient facts that I am replying because I am being nice and you asked nicely “please explain” but that on your worldview, even if I am 100% incorrect and delusional, it matters not.
If it was that simple, why are there so many Atheist denominations? It is a non-sequitur from “God is the highest being” to why is there so many denominations: I already to you that, for example, there is a Korean denomination church in town and I would never attend because I do not understand Korean—they are their own denomination because they are therefore, able to server a specific community.
By definition “God is the highest being” which is why for Atheists nature is God—or god—since Atheism is Pagan.

Charlie Reid
Sorry for the delay, takes a while to decipher your ramblings.
If you have never seen any such data then start or keep looking. – Data for what?
By faith, you believe in a universe that came about from nothing, by nothing, to nothing and for nothing. – Don’t you think it’s rather arrogant and rude claiming to know what I think? As matter cannot be created or destroyed it’s logical to presume matter is eternal, there’s never been nothing. What do you perceive as nothing?
Yet, the universe is based on mathematical principles. – I presume you mean we use mathematics to understand the universe? So what?
The universe consists of interactive/symbiotic parts, (that truth, logic, and ethics are accidental as is our ability to be cognizant of them, employ them, etc.), etc.—and just replying that such is by accident would not be a cogent reply. – This is why I question your ‘author’ status as this comment, like many, is almost incoherent. Are you claiming truth, logic and ethics are part of the universe, not a human construct and we somehow stumbled upon them? Are you also saying any answer but agreement with your convoluted understanding of reality is incoherent?
The premise of the scientific method was that a rational creator created a rational creation and populated with rational beings who could rationally discern it. – Another absolutely nonsensical claim, you obviously do not care about truth as you don’t understand the scientific method.
Of course, multiverse sounds feasible to you since it offers you a way to run away from the evidence of intelligent design. – What evidence?
You are used to believing in things by “faith” without evidence—the multiverse is your supernatural realm. – You obviously know faith is a dishonest position which is why you continually and rather insanely try and disingenuously associate faith with my position, whatever your cognitive quagmire has deemed it to be. You believe in fairy tales and you have never been able to present one iota of reasonable evidence, no faith no god.
The inconvenient facts that I am replying because I am being nice and you asked nicely “please explain” but that on your worldview, even if I am 100% incorrect and delusional, it matters not. – Asked you dozens of times now, what’s my worldview you incessantly claim to know?
If it was that simple, why are there so many Atheist denominations? – Name a few as i’m unaware of any.
It is a non-sequitur from “God is the highest being” to why is there so many denominations: – What are you talking about?
I already to you that, for example, there is a Korean denomination church in town and I would never attend because I do not understand Korean—they are their own denomination because they are therefore, able to server a specific community. – Don’t think you understand denomination, what does language have to do with doctrine?
By definition “God is the highest being” which is why for Atheists nature is God—or god—since Atheism is Pagan. – By definition god is illogical therefore nonexistent and wow, wow, wow, you still don’t understand atheism!!! It’s intriguing your brainwashing actually inhibits you understanding certain topics pertaining to your indoctrination.
BTW your meme is quite amusing, is that christian humour or do you still not understand atheism?

This was the meme to which he referred:

Atheism steam.jpg

True Freethinker
Friend, you flatly refuse to become a deep thinker now matter how very many times I beg you to be one. And by deep I just mean something as simple as one level below your emotive modus operandi.
For example, you ask “Don’t you think it’s rather arrogant and rude” but being arrogant and rude are not problems on your worldview which is part of why you can never write in turns such as “Don’t you think it’s rather arrogant and rude because, after all, being arrogant and rude is absolutely wrong because…” and then fill in your cogent syllogism.
You missed a key point of categorization “matter[/energy] cannot be created or destroyed” in a closed system, within the universe, within the box. There is no principle that states that matter cannot be created or destroyed ever, anywhere or in realms wherein the term “anywhere” does not even apply. So, you are misstating the First Law of Thermodynamics/ the Law of Conservation of Matter. In fact, you missed out on recognizing a biblical scientific prophecy about how God was creating at stopped at a certain point thus, only a certain amount of energy/matter was created and thereafter it can change but not cease to be—until the box is opened up and the system is no longer closed.
But to believe that “matter is eternal” is you abandoning the most up to date science in favor of your “faith.”
That the universe is based on mathematical principles means that the universe is based on mathematical principles: everything of which we know is based on priorly existing information—and the only known source of information is mind.
Of course, truth, logic and ethics are part of the universe if they were not then they would not have existed until accidental human accidentally stumbled upon them, could accidentally be cognizant of them, etc.
Friend, just because you are ignorant of the verifiable facts of the history of science does not mean that the premise of the scientific method was not that a rational creator created a rational creation and populated with rational beings who could rationally discern it. If that causes problems to your worldview I would recommend abandoning your worldview rather than being militant about anything that dares to challenge it—such as verifiable facts.
Again, just because you are ignorant of evidence of intelligent design does not mean that it does not exist.
You are playing mind reader again by claiming, by “faith,” that I am disingenuous and you also have no premise upon which to condemn it so you are merely emoting again but no, I do not “associate faith with” your position but associate “faith” with it: faith being within my worldview which means coming to conclusions based on prior knowledge but “faith” being within your worldview which implies the typical Atheist group-think talking-point of belief without evidence.
You seem to be experiencing amnesia since you again merely assert “You believe in fairy tales” but do not bother telling me why that would be a problem on your worldview, and “you have never been able to present one iota of reasonable evidence, no faith no god” but you seem to forget that you have failed to provide a premise for demanding evidence even though I have asked you for one many, many, many, many, many, many times.
You also suffer from amnesia regarding “Asked you dozens of times now, what’s my worldview you incessantly claim to know?” since we have been through that many, many, many, many, many, many times.
The main Atheist denominations/sects are strong atheism, positive atheism, explicit atheism, critical atheism and weak atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism.
Premise “God is the highest being” to conclusion “why is there so many denominations” is incoherent—but that is acceptable on your worldview.
The Korean church denomination is a church denomination.
Now, you assert that “god is illogical” (without bother to elucidate why you hold to what by “faith”) but, again, you merely jump to that conclusion rather than arguing your case, you are merely emoting again—which is why I beg you to actually make a case. Again, on your worldview holding to illogical views does not matter—and you must realize that which is why you flatly refuse to do anything but express emotions.
You assert that I am brainwashed and indoctrinated but as a jump to a conclusion without evidence and also without a premise upon which to condemn it—do you really not discern your emotive modus operandi?
I have told you again that since your worldview tells you that you are nothing but a an accidentally and temporarily existing ape then you keep showing up here, you pound your chest, I am not impressed, you type out some insults, I engage you on an intellectual level, and you run away—only to come back and do it all again, and again, and again, and again.
Now, someone who was not saturated with pure hatred, as you so very clearly and sadly are, would not write something like, “BTW your meme is quite amusing, is that christian humour or do you still not understand atheism?” but would write “Atheism consists of absolute dogma, your meme violated our absolute dogma in the following manner and adhering to absolute truth is an imperative because…” and you would then go on to fill in the blanks.
Yet, you do not and cannot because you are an anti-intellectual—part of why you exclusively opt for expressing emotions—and because you must at some level realize that your worldview would fail you the minute you even attempt any such cogent reply.

And well, that ended it since he did not reply again—it seems that when it is not going well for him, he runs away, comments on a different post, we go over the very same issues again, he runs away, comments on a different post, etc. so as to make it seem as if his view have not been debunked time and again and again (and again).

See my books on—or rather, contra—Atheism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, or any of my other social network sites listed on the left hand menu and/or on the “Share/Save” button below the tags.