What has God done for you? (Christians only!)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That 'theory' is a sarcastic insult.

but your statement was that you don't discount anything you don't have a smoking gun for...

what is the smoking gun that there ISNT a teapot orbiting mars?

what is the smoking gun that unicorns don't exist

what is the smoking.... etc

you might be right that the question is asked sarcastically, however, the logic is the exact same. If the standard of evidence is that there must be "smoking gun" evidence that something doesn't exist, there are millions of things that I know you don't believe in that you would HAVE to still say "I'm open minded" about, like a teapot orbiting mars.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I'm pretty sure Hubble would've photographed it by now.

there are no instruments in possession by humans that could 100% assuredly discount the idea of said teacup

I assume hubble doesn't have close the the resolution required, as it is made to view deep space

no telescopes currently have been designed to view very small objects orbiting planets, at least to the best of my knowledge

also, couldn't one make the argument that "Shouldn't God have revealed himself by now?"

EDIT:

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So how did a teapot somehow get caught up in Mars' orbit?

where did God come from?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Don't answer me with a question. Why hasn't the teapot been photographed?

It has magical powers that prevent it from being photographed.

So, you keep an open mind about it? Want to come to my house and worship the orbiting teapot for a while?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It has magical powers that prevent it from being photographed.

So, you keep an open mind about it? Want to come to my house and worship the orbiting teapot for a while?

If it exists, the object isn't worthy of worship. I'll just react to the discovery the same way I did when Pluto was no longer a planet: "That's interesting." and then life goes on.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If it exists, the object isn't worthy of worship. I'll just react to the discovery the same way I did when Pluto was no longer a planet: "That's interesting." and then life goes on.

And the point just goes over your head. 🙄

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If it exists, the object isn't worthy of worship. I'll just react to the discovery the same way I did when Pluto was no longer a planet: "That's interesting." and then life goes on.

Actually, that teapot created the universe...and only through worshipping it can you find happiness in the afterlife.

So, tuesdays at 6? Beer's on me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Actually, that teapot created the universe...and only through worshipping it can you find happiness in the afterlife.

So, tuesdays at 6? Beer's on me.

Sure.

Hold on, are you sure the teapot is ok with drinking? The whistling stove-top creator of all things has no dietary rules?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Hold on, are you sure the teapot is ok with drinking? The whistling stove-top creator of all things has no dietary rules?

That would be a kettle.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Sure.

Hold on, are you sure the teapot is ok with drinking? The whistling stove-top creator of all things has no dietary rules?

Actually he is fine with it. Our godly porcelainess is a lord of indulgence.

Oh god, I need to hyperlink to a million people 😂

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
That 'theory' is a sarcastic insult.

It's a pretty reasonable comparison. Any statement that can be made about God's existance can be easily applied to a small object too far away to be seen even by powerful telescopes.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
If it exists, the object isn't worthy of worship. I'll just react to the discovery the same way I did when Pluto was no longer a planet: "That's interesting." and then life goes on.

That's essentially the point.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Don't answer me with a question. Why hasn't the teapot been photographed?

Why hasn't creationism produced any evidence? It's the same thing, thus the analogy that apparently went over your head. Your definition of open-minded doesn't seem to be "be open to possibilities" but "be open to what I want to believe and nothing else that has similarly little evidence."

Because there's the exact same amount of evidence for the teapot as your theory. But you choose to believe one and not the other. Faith. Not reason or evidence, like I said earlier.

Others have said basically the same thing. Not sure why I think my response might get you to understand it when theirs clearly didn't.

What evidence could creationism possibly provide?

Considering their is little evidence for God himself...

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What evidence could creationism possibly provide?

Considering their is little evidence for God himself...

All they have to do is say they believe by faith and leave the fact thing alone.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What evidence could creationism possibly provide?

Considering their is little evidence for God himself...

Some more for God would be a start.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Some more for God would be a start.

Well, thats the point...there isn't any.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, thats the point...there isn't any.

What a coincidence, that is mine, too.

Originally posted by Bardock42
What a coincidence, that is mine, too.

Well...this all worked out for the best then.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What evidence could creationism possibly provide?

Pictures'd be nice.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
What evidence could creationism possibly provide?

Considering their is little evidence for God himself...

Heh. You're kinda making my point for me.

srug

Iirc, you still maintain a belief in God, right Gav? And this despite any substantial evidence. That's fine, as a possible creator is completely unknowable, and could indeed exist. But the Christian God, the one most frequently believed in, is a God who is very active in mortal affairs: creating miracles, sending sons, writing literary tomes, answering prayers, actively intervening in the evolutionary process, etc. etc. Surely a lack of evidence (combined with a healthy dose of identical mythologies preceding Christianity, contradictions within the texts, plausible explanations for supposed transcendent events either in history or modern times, etc.) is enough to cast considerable doubt on him, no?

Science, and a lack of evidence, has little to say about the concept of God itself. Strictly speaking, it can't say anything about it. But it can speak volumes about nearly all man-made religions, which have causal physical affects that should be able to be traced and/or observed and recorded. The same can be said for most supposed paranormal phenomenon. Paranormal cause (presumably) but with tangible affects that can't be otherwise explained. Those gods and beliefs fall well within the realm of science, and thus far the lack of any evidence is quite damning.