@Jo
Can you give a link to these scientists that say there was light before the stars. Can you prove the bible is correct that light existed before stars?

Jo - Trying to match it up with science is to misunderstand its intent and to force something on the text that does not seem to be the authors intent. Both theists and atheist are misusing the Bible and science when they try to do that.

V.S.

Jo - Science now confirms there was light in the universe before the sun and stars. It has also confirmed that the universe had a beginning. Just like the Bible says.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and for bonus points: that isn't accurate either (your statement about how science confirms the universe had a beginning).

V.S.

Jo - No one should misuse science and twist the Bible to support their beliefs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
If I remember correctly---in your mythology---Jesus has some pretty nasty stuff to say about hypocrisy.

Jo "@ Sheldon

When you attack my character and intelligence (dishonest, stupid, trolling, not rocket science) you undermine your own credibility.
If I am as stupid as you claim, you should feel sorry for me instead of calling me names"

I didn't insult your character or call you names, you keep asking me for proof no deity exists and I've never made that claim, I have repeatedly explained this and that it is an appeal to ignorance fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

I've even explain what that means and offered links.

The fact you keep ignoring all this and dishonestly repeating the question can infer only one of two things. Either you're being dishonest by trolling or you're genuinely too stupid to grasp a fairly simple premise of informal logic.

My hypothetical was also a direct comment on what you had posted. It made no direct assertions about your character.

Instead of being butt hurt, and continually ignoring post content why not address the FACT you keep rehashing a question you now MUST KNOW is based a known common logical fallacy, whilst refusing to acknowledge this each time its pointed out to you?

You have also lied again in that post, as asking what objective evidence you can demonstrate for any deity makes no assumptions at all. You either can or you cannot, I certainly will infer something if you cannot, and that will be that I don't believe any claim for which no objective evidence an be shown, and this is a universal standard I apply to ALL claims, unlike you and all the other theists I've encountered.

Your relentless attempts to frame questions in a dishonest word game to avoid the epistemological burden of proof your theistic belief carries is utterly transparent and completely facile. You won't fool us into thinking you've created a sound compelling argument through repetition. What's more I have asked repeatedly for theists to give some examples of things they believe without any objective evidence that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs and not only did you fail to do this, you rehashed a string of questions for atheists that were duplicitous in implying atheism is anything more than the lack of a belief. You then ignored the response, and rolled on making the same duplicitous claims about there being parity for evidence between belief (theism), and the absence of that belief (atheism).

If an atheist makes a claim that doesn't change the definition of atheism or add a burden of proof to it, only that individual is culpable for that claim. Theism on the other hand, as well as having an inherent claim in its core belief, has masses of dogma, doctrine and scripture that make claims. So it is for each to theist to properly define their beliefs.

One last point, science is the best method we have for studying and explaining reality. Its innumerable successes are manifest evidence of this. If you are claiming it can't study something, then the obvious inference is to question how you could know this, yet beyond the bare claim you offer naught but the usual fatuous anecdotal claims all theists of all persuasions fall back on when they are directly challenged to evidence their claims.

Claims are not evidenced by other claims. Also if the best method we have can't evidence something then its epistemologically sound to point out that science can't evidence anything that does not exist, please demonstrate evidence of how your deity differs from non existent things like all the other deities you don't believe exist for example, or mermaids unicorns or aliens who seem to have a penchant for anally assaulting lonely farmers and cowboys in the wilds of Montana?

It's time to piss, or get off the pot.