835 reputation
524
bio website sklivvz.com
location London, United Kingdom
age 43
visits member for 3 years, 3 months
seen 2 days ago

Stack Overflow Valued Associate

  • Contributor since September 15th 2008
  • Skeptics Moderator from February 2011 to March 2013
  • Core dev since March 2013

You can find me on

Some code of mine, mostly old :-)


Sep
23
comment Was God living in darkness before the creation of light?
@and I won't comment on the theological part, but from a strictly physical standpoint the Genesis account doesn't make any sense. Suggesting otherwise is misleading.
Aug
31
awarded  Yearling
Aug
20
comment If God controls our decisions, does this mean we don't have free will?
@Richard isn't that a tautology though? An entity outside the bounds of time is by definition a "super-chrono" entity. It doesn't need to have its own time though.
Apr
15
awarded  Nice Question
Jan
17
awarded  Nice Question
Dec
12
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@corsiKa There is no dragon in Carl Sagan's garage :-)
Dec
12
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@corsiKa Either one knows what God is, or they don't. Science is very precise, and wishy-washy definitions are clearly not addressable. This includes unclear personal opinions. On the other hand every single time religious people made a verifiable assertion (let me emphasise: every single time), they have been proven wrong (summaries.cochrane.org/CD000368/…). This is a fact - if you disagree, give an example of an experiment has proven the God hypothesis, I'll be happy to learn something new :-)
Nov
4
awarded  Popular Question
Sep
21
awarded  Custodian
Aug
31
awarded  Yearling
Jul
9
comment Who created God?
@Pacerier It's not possible because there is a time and there is a difference.
Jul
9
comment Who created God?
@Pac "creation" means going from a state where a thing does not exist, to a state where something exists. This has to happen in this order, otherwise we would be talking about a destruction. This "order" makes sense only if time exists. For example, in your "instantaneous" time, creation would not be possible and it would look exactly like destruction.
Jun
20
comment Are people possessed by demons today? What is the modern Christian perspective?
"These kinds of things normally don't get media attention. They're too supernatural." It's actually the opposite, normally. The real problem is that such things are utterly false, and completely unbelievable to a modern, well-educated person.
Jan
12
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
In fact, those qualities have been addressed by science, strongly disproved repeatedly, and it is only by shifting the definition of G that religion can rationalise this. Ultimately, it is this ever moving target ("G of the gaps") that makes the topic intractable.
Jan
12
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@serathur the existence of G cannot be discussed without a definition of G and a coherent choice of what you mean by existence. Science defines as necessary for existence to have some measurable quality, such as the ability to influence the physical world. So any statement like G performs miracles, answers prayers or a soul makes us alive makes G addressable by science.
Jan
2
accepted Exorcisms: effective remedy or historical curiosity?
Oct
31
comment Why does God not show Himself beyond reasonable doubt?
@Caleb: and I thought religion had answers... apparently not.
Oct
10
comment Is it easy to live a Christian life?
This question is completely subjective and should be closed.
Oct
9
comment How was the Old Testament compiled?
Obviously: ./configure && make && make install ;-)
Oct
9
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@Caleb While informative, I can't help but think this answer is still a bit circular. If you presuppose that God exists, then there is no burden of proof, but you openly admit blind faith (because the existence of God is merely axiomatic and not proven). This does not address the point by the OP. Is assuming God exists by default a requirement for Christians? If not, then there's something not working here. If yes, then you should say it clearly.