Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My fair view.

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:37:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
My fair view of evolution and creationism. Surprised that I would say there is evidence for evolution? Evolution and creationism are both opposing views of the earth's past in relation to biology but also in cosmology to an extent.

Now lets begin on where we get our knowledge from. Empirically we observe things and discover facts, for example we know that if we rub our hands together it will create friction which is then transferred into heat, that is a fact, try it. But that fact does not point either to evolution or creationism, or you could say the other away around and say the fact points to both evolution and creationism, but never to just one or the other.

Now both dogs and cats have whiskers, again as a normality that is a fact, dogs and cats both have whiskers, but that points to both evolution and creationism as evidence depending how you look at it and perceive the fact. You can either say the reason why both dogs and cats have whiskers is because they are have both evolved from the same common ancestor, but if that was proved there would be no other claim that also gives reason to why both dogs and cats have whiskers, but the reality is, there is and that being that they were created by the same designer, that being God.

Now you might say facts prove things, well yes they do, for example 1+1=2 therefore 1+1 does not equal anything but 2. However this is mathematics which is all does not prove evolution or creationism. But facts only prove things when someone creates or develops something. For example a crime scene; a criminal kills another man and puts his victims corps in a bush a number of miles away from where the murder took place. Say for instance I heard that average Joe was murdered a day ago, as a detective I begin to look for clues. I find a knife with a red substance on the blade, I straight away assume it to be blood and take it to be analysed, I get a DNA reading. A few days later a body is found in a bush 12 miles away from where the knife was found. I organise for the body to be taken to the lab to have an autopsy and when I get the results showing that the blood on the knife matches the DNA of the murdered victim. The knife wound matches the type of blade we found so we come to the conclusion that the knife was used to kill this victim 12 miles away.

Now the facts in this case were created by man, not by evolution or by God and therefore man can rightly say the facts in the crime point to the knife being the murder weapon. So the facts do not point to the evidence as facts are evident in the crime, but with evolution and creationism the facts are neutral because no one has created evolution or creationism therefore no one has the capability to prove either one. And you cannot prove God empirically and facts derive form empirical information, facts do not derive from reasoning and you can only assume God exists due to reason, this goes for evolution too, you can only reason as no one has seen evolution empirically.

But in the crime scene case the crime was done by a man, the murderer, so because of that by factual evidence, a man such a a detective can solve the crime. The vital thing here is that if evolution was created by man and creationism was created by man then man could prove either one wrong or correct as fact, but since that is not the case, fact proves neither and therefore it is down to a individual to decide which way to go, creationism or evolution? Both inherit facts. Facts, you can say either do or do not point to either, but the interpretation of a individual makes it out to seem like the facts point to one over the other, when in reality facts don't point either way or they point both ways. However evolution must be right or creationism must be right, therefore a person must have an opinion of some kind of either one.

Like the facts in the crime case are pieced together they are evidence that the knife was the murder weapon for everyone, that once it was proved it was once and for all and you would have you find evidence that disproves the evidence which already has solved the case, so you cannot disprove a crime that has been solved, it would be like disproving a fact. So it is the opposite way around, as man can create facts by their actions, man can prove what man has done by the facts he has created. But if man has not created the facts, shall we call them macro facts like for example, a thorn is shape because all the presser of gravity is being forced into a single point. And micro facts for example, there are photo graphs of me, but micro facts aren't necessary but are enough to be facts even though they aren't relevant. Whereas macro facts are necessary to everyone and are relevant to everyone.

It is a fact that there are fossils and fossils could both be a result of evolution or a flood because animals can die in floods and if it was global then all the animals which were not out of reach from the flood would die. And for evolution to proceed, animals that evolution has produced must die. So either way in both the global flood and evolution animals die, and those are facts, but neither facts that animals die due to drowning or evolution give proof of a global flood or of evolution actually happening. Since within evolution some creatures would have died due to drowning which have been fossilised and in creation a creature have not been fossilised due to drowning.

What makes a certain animal be what it is? Well on one side of the scale you can say a animal is defined by what it looks like, and on the other you can say it is defined by what it acts like. However it is really both. Take the bird for instance, not all birds can fly and not all birds have feathers or beaks, some like ducks have bills. But all birds lay eggs, but it is not just birds that lay eggs. But when we see a bird we know it is a bird, because it acts like a bird. If I said I saw a bird acting like a dog, so I called it a dog, that would be arrogant because who am I to say what a bird should act like. That is like saying if I saw a human act like a monkey for a day, I would not call the person a human but a monkey. So the bird is defined by how it acts and looks which are compatible and cannot be departed from each other. You cannot have a dog act or looks totally like a human because it looks and acts like a dog and we see what a dog looks like and acts likes and we see what a human looks and acts like.

In conclusion it is down to a individual to decide whether evolution or creationism is correct as one is. However micro evolution, where there are variations within family groups of the animal kingdom points to both evolution and creationism, as micro evolution does not disprove God as a designer neither does it prove that God the designer exists, but with the account of time micro evolution could be reasoned that it can seem to lead to macro evolution. However while micro evolution is fact as has been observed it does not prove macro evolution because you do not observe macro evolution by researching micro evolution but you only observe micro by researching micro evolution, hence the word observe.

So feeling, desire and will power are the pieces of the puzzle that only are of the individual that drives one to decide which one is true based on how they wish to live their lives, what their background has been like etc...

Anyone disagree or agree?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:45:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 12:40:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
Which begs the question, do you trust man or the Bible?

certainly no reason to trust the bible.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:47:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Before we waste our time with this, can you let us know, did kleptin ever succeed in teaching you what evolution is?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:49:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/19/2010 12:45:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/19/2010 12:40:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
Which begs the question, do you trust man or the Bible?

certainly no reason to trust the bible.


No there is reason to, and to trust men, but is there evidence that you should either trust men and the Bible? Is it a fact that if I believe in Jesus Christ I will be saved? No, is it a fact if you trust in man you will not go to Hell? No. Visa versa.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:52:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/19/2010 12:47:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Before we waste our time with this, can you let us know, did kleptin ever succeed in teaching you what evolution is?

I believe Kleptin wanted me to not know what evolution was so I couldn't treaten it. Even though I know what evolution is and what creationism is, that has brought me to type out what I have above. Have you actually read all of what I typed out above? Don't lie.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:52:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 12:49:19 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 3/19/2010 12:45:58 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/19/2010 12:40:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
Which begs the question, do you trust man or the Bible?

certainly no reason to trust the bible.


No there is reason to, and to trust men, but is there evidence that you should either trust men and the Bible? Is it a fact that if I believe in Jesus Christ I will be saved? No, is it a fact if you trust in man you will not go to Hell? No. Visa versa.

Saved? Hell? where'd you get those Ideas?
Oh that's right... THE BIBLE.

Is there any reason to trust the bible on such things???

Not that I know of.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:53:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 12:52:22 PM, GodSands wrote:
Have you actually read all of what I typed out above? Don't lie.

lol... Not quite :)

I started to it was just a little hard to keep goin.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 12:58:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 12:52:22 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 3/19/2010 12:47:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Before we waste our time with this, can you let us know, did kleptin ever succeed in teaching you what evolution is?

I believe Kleptin wanted me to not know what evolution was so I couldn't treaten it.

I believe Kleptin wanted to teach you what evolution was so you could either stop your childish prattle or at least engage in a serious adult conversation.

Even though I know what evolution is

Do you though? Has this been verified by a third party or are we going to see a return to your croco-duck pokemon nonsense? Sorry to be so harsh, but in previous arguments you have been willfully ignorant.

and what creationism is, that has brought me to type out what I have above. Have you actually read all of what I typed out above? Don't lie.

Not fully, I want to know if you have done your homework this time, otherwise this thread will likely be a waste of time.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:06:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You do take into account the idea that nethier theory can be proven so both are possible, but what of evedince for the necessary senorio's that cant happen based on fact?
as long as you seem to include all the way up to cosmological evolution as part of the theroy of evolution, there are certain facts that we know that simply require the earth to have been formed instantly. http://www.halos.com...
Polonium Halos exist in places that they just couldnt get in unless that rock they are found in cooled to a solid instantly.
This of course is not a fact that contridicts biological evolution in anyway, or even the teaching that the Earth is billions of years old. only that it did not take billions of years to form.
I am as open minded as you are though, that evolution can be gods method of creation without contridicting any essential doctrine. I could have happened that way, I just dont think it did.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:08:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I've read it all now.

Now what I think we've got to agree on is that some explanations have good reason behind them and some don't.

I think you'd prolly agree that the best explanation of political events is not that Reptilian aliens live underground and act through prominent world leaders; The Illuminati; to shape events as they see fit... such that theirs fear and distress which the Reptilian overlords somehow Feed off of.

This explanation IS coherent. AND is what some people put forth. Does it offer an Explanation for things?? YES. It does.

Is it an explanation that has Reason behind it??
No. It doesn't seem it does.

Now there are good reasons to believe in the things which cause Evolution; that is Mutations and Time... apparently EXIST. and the theory of evolution is just describing how these things can lead to the diversity we see.

Creationism suggests what we see can be explained by a "Creation" by an Eternal, loving, all knowing, all powerful GOD; and explains how that could have happened through that God.

The question is: Is there any reason to believe that God exists? (just as with evolution you should make sure random mutations and time apparently exist, before you sign up).

In the case of Geo's conspiracy theories... I've never seen evidence or good reasoning for the existence of Reptilian aliens.

In the case of creationism... I've never heard good reasoning to believe in God.

In the Case of Evolution... I have heard of good reason to believe in Mutations.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:10:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/19/2010 12:58:44 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 3/19/2010 12:52:22 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 3/19/2010 12:47:19 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Before we waste our time with this, can you let us know, did kleptin ever succeed in teaching you what evolution is?

I believe Kleptin wanted me to not know what evolution was so I couldn't treaten it.

I believe Kleptin wanted to teach you what evolution was so you could either stop your childish prattle or at least engage in a serious adult conversation.

Even though I know what evolution is

Do you though? Has this been verified by a third party or are we going to see a return to your croco-duck pokemon nonsense? Sorry to be so harsh, but in previous arguments you have been willfully ignorant.

and what creationism is, that has brought me to type out what I have above. Have you actually read all of what I typed out above? Don't lie.

Not fully, I want to know if you have done your homework this time, otherwise this thread will likely be a waste of time.


Read it. I spent alot of time thinking about what I wrote. Pokemon is merely micro evolution actioning like macro evolution, instead of time, pokemon teleport.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:12:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:10:16 PM, GodSands wrote:


Read it. I spent alot of time thinking about what I wrote. Pokemon is merely micro evolution actioning like macro evolution, instead of time, pokemon teleport.

No,
You still do not understand evolution. If you want to be taught then ask, but until then this thread, and your opinions on the matter, are worthless.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:15:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Godsands, you don't have a "fair" view of creationism and evolution. I called it a "biased" one because you're a Christian. You make the mistake by saying that evolution and creationism are opposing views. They can be compatible. This view is called theistic evolution. It's the belief hat there is a God that is the creator of the universe and biological evolution is the process within that creation and a tool to develop human life.

Your fact about heat created by friction is irrelevant to evolution or creationism.
Both dogs and cats have whiskers. This points to a common ancestor and a common designer. Both dogs and lizards don't have whiskers. This points to only a common ancestor and not a common designer. Creationism without evolution fails. God's has cool designs. Just check out the youtube video.

You can observe micro evolution. You cannot observe macro evolution. You cannot observe gravity. But that does not make it false.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:27:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/19/2010 1:08:27 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
I've read it all now.

Now what I think we've got to agree on is that some explanations have good reason behind them and some don't.

I think you'd prolly agree that the best explanation of political events is not that Reptilian aliens live underground and act through prominent world leaders; The Illuminati; to shape events as they see fit... such that theirs fear and distress which the Reptilian overlords somehow Feed off of.

This explanation IS coherent. AND is what some people put forth. Does it offer an Explanation for things?? YES. It does.

Is it an explanation that has Reason behind it??
No. It doesn't seem it does.

Now there are good reasons to believe in the things which cause Evolution; that is Mutations and Time... apparently EXIST. and the theory of evolution is just describing how these things can lead to the diversity we see.

Creationism suggests what we see can be explained by a "Creation" by an Eternal, loving, all knowing, all powerful GOD; and explains how that could have happened through that God.

The question is: Is there any reason to believe that God exists? (just as with evolution you should make sure random mutations and time apparently exist, before you sign up).

In the case of Geo's conspiracy theories... I've never seen evidence or good reasoning for the existence of Reptilian aliens.

In the case of creationism... I've never heard good reasoning to believe in God.

In the Case of Evolution... I have heard of good reason to believe in Mutations.


Is there any reason to believe that God exists?

Is there not?

I've never heard good reasoning to believe in God.

Why do you think reasonable people believe in God? Because there is no good reason to or because there is good reason to? All down to you, it is all down to you.

I have heard of good reason to believe in Mutations.

Same, I just choose not to believe in evolution. I have also heard bad reasons to believe in possitive mutation. I have to choose one or the other, I cannot say there are good and bad reasons because if I said there were both I would be deciding which reason what the good or the bad reason which would mean it is not down to my belief that God exist which makes me believe in the bad reason but it would be down to me, which it isn't but it is down to God who I believe in. You say there are both bad and good reasons to believe in mutations but the bas reason do not reason with your reasoning, even though we both have heard the same reasons, we just decide based on our feelings, desires, and will to believe in either the good or bad reason to you and that God exists to me, although for you there aren't good or bad reasons in reality but to you personally they are either good or bad, but to me because I believe in God they aren't either good or bad. Just reasons which you have to believe in.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:28:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/19/2010 1:15:49 PM, Immortal wrote:
Godsands, you don't have a "fair" view of creationism and evolution. I called it a "biased" one because you're a Christian. You make the mistake by saying that evolution and creationism are opposing views. They can be compatible. This view is called theistic evolution. It's the belief hat there is a God that is the creator of the universe and biological evolution is the process within that creation and a tool to develop human life.

Your fact about heat created by friction is irrelevant to evolution or creationism.
Both dogs and cats have whiskers. This points to a common ancestor and a common designer. Both dogs and lizards don't have whiskers. This points to only a common ancestor and not a common designer. Creationism without evolution fails. God's has cool designs. Just check out the youtube video.

You can observe micro evolution. You cannot observe macro evolution. You cannot observe gravity. But that does not make it false.


Lose it boy. Enough of your jibba jabba, your totally missing the point.
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:32:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:10:16 PM, GodSands wrote:

Read it. I spent alot of time thinking about what I wrote. Pokemon is merely micro evolution actioning like macro evolution, instead of time, pokemon teleport.

Pokemon Evolution = metamorphosis
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:32:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:28:43 PM, GodSands wrote:

Lose it boy. Enough of your jibba jabba, your totally missing the point.

Lose it GodSands. Enough of your talk, you're completely missing t point.
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:33:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:32:58 PM, Immortal wrote:
At 3/19/2010 1:28:43 PM, GodSands wrote:

Lose it boy. Enough of your jibba jabba, your totally missing the point.

Lose it GodSands. Enough of your talk, you're completely missing the point.

Fixed.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:36:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/19/2010 1:28:43 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 3/19/2010 1:15:49 PM, Immortal wrote:
Godsands, you don't have a "fair" view of creationism and evolution. I called it a "biased" one because you're a Christian. You make the mistake by saying that evolution and creationism are opposing views. They can be compatible. This view is called theistic evolution. It's the belief hat there is a God that is the creator of the universe and biological evolution is the process within that creation and a tool to develop human life.

Your fact about heat created by friction is irrelevant to evolution or creationism.
Both dogs and cats have whiskers. This points to a common ancestor and a common designer. Both dogs and lizards don't have whiskers. This points to only a common ancestor and not a common designer. Creationism without evolution fails. God's has cool designs. Just check out the youtube video.

You can observe micro evolution. You cannot observe macro evolution. You cannot observe gravity. But that does not make it false.


Lose it boy. Enough of your jibba jabba, your totally missing the point.


By the way, I can't stand that guy voice. And once sin enter into the world according to the Bible, death, suffering, disease entered into the world too. End off.
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:38:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:36:26 PM, GodSands wrote:

By the way, I can't stand that guy voice. And once sin enter into the world according to the Bible, death, suffering, disease entered into the world too. End off.

God couldn't prevent sin from entering the world? God is powerless to stop death, suffering, and disease?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:44:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is there any reason to believe that God exists?

Is there not?

Maybe you could supply one... Perhaps your good reason?

I've never heard good reasoning to believe in God.

Why do you think reasonable people believe in God? Because there is no good reason to or because there is good reason to? All down to you, it is all down to you.

Umm.. when I ask they tell me things.. but I haven't yet heard things which would suggest God.

And in this regard I think they're being unreasonable.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:45:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/19/2010 1:38:47 PM, Immortal wrote:
At 3/19/2010 1:36:26 PM, GodSands wrote:

By the way, I can't stand that guy voice. And once sin enter into the world according to the Bible, death, suffering, disease entered into the world too. End off.

God couldn't prevent sin from entering the world? God is powerless to stop death, suffering, and disease?


That is like saying, why isn't there disease, suffering, pain, anguish without God? God gave man free choice because God doesn't want man to love Him robotically, but freely, but that also implies man has a free choice to disobey God, cannot be one and not the other my friend.

Can any prave reasonable atheist step out and speak to Immortal explaining why he is wrong?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:47:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:45:49 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 3/19/2010 1:38:47 PM, Immortal wrote:
At 3/19/2010 1:36:26 PM, GodSands wrote:

By the way, I can't stand that guy voice. And once sin enter into the world according to the Bible, death, suffering, disease entered into the world too. End off.

God couldn't prevent sin from entering the world? God is powerless to stop death, suffering, and disease?


That is like saying, why isn't there disease, suffering, pain, anguish without God? God gave man free choice because God doesn't want man to love Him robotically, but freely, but that also implies man has a free choice to disobey God, cannot be one and not the other my friend.

Can any prave reasonable atheist step out and speak to Immortal explaining why he is wrong?

lol

Augustine would say ALL is God.

Your understanding of God vs. "Evil" is not so strong.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:48:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:45:49 PM, GodSands wrote:

Can any prave reasonable atheist step out and speak to Immortal explaining why he is wrong?

Why should we have to defend your inconsistent theology when you can't be arsed?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:49:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 3/19/2010 1:44:11 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Is there any reason to believe that God exists?

Is there not?

Maybe you could supply one... Perhaps your good reason?

I've never heard good reasoning to believe in God.

Why do you think reasonable people believe in God? Because there is no good reason to or because there is good reason to? All down to you, it is all down to you.

Umm.. when I ask they tell me things.. but I haven't yet heard things which would suggest God.

And in this regard I think they're being unreasonable.


I might as well say, God created the universe, that alone is reasonable, and many people don't need any more reasons to believe created the universe. So what you are saying is not, "Give me reason." But, "Prove that God exists." When I am not asking for proof that God does not exist where you are asking for proof that He does.

It doesn't work that way.
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:49:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:45:49 PM, GodSands wrote:

That is like saying, why isn't there disease, suffering, pain, anguish without God? God gave man free choice because God doesn't want man to love Him robotically, but freely, but that also implies man has a free choice to disobey God, cannot be one and not the other my friend.

What happened to Heaven? Is there free will in Heaven? Is there free will in Heaven? Do man love God as if they are robots? Is there sin in Heaven?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:49:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A piece of advice, GodSands? Try to compress your posts more. Few people who visit this thread are going to read it all the way through.
Immortal
Posts: 350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2010 1:51:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/19/2010 1:47:57 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:

lol

Augustine would say ALL is God.

Your understanding of God vs. "Evil" is not so strong.

Was that directed to me?