Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[6days]

You are still asserting that causes must be associated with every event.

Experience... logic.... empirical science shows us that everything which has begun to exist has a cause. Atheists seem to believe against all wisdom that nothing caused everything. (Or, they admit that there may have been an eternally existing cause).


BTW... you had made a comment about science disproving creationist ideas. I asked if you wanted to compare against evolutionary ideas science has disproved. (Disproved in the sense that there is total agreement amongst scientists)

 

[Stuu]

Experience... logic.... empirical science shows us that everything which has begun to exist has a cause.

Empirical science showed us that the Big Bang can't have a cause, by the definition of that term. Your brain will tell you that its experience is of causal effects, because that is what the brain is always looking for: the lack of cause for the Big Bang is counter-intuitive, so relying on human experience and logic isn't necessarily a good idea. Relativity is completely counter-intuitive but is necessary to make GPS and the Large Hadron Collider work. Quantum tunneling makes little logical sense but it is essential to how electrical devices work.

BTW... you had made a comment about science disproving creationist ideas. I asked if you wanted to compare against evolutionary ideas science has disproved. (Disproved in the sense that there is total agreement amongst scientists)

I still owe you an example of one piece of empirical evidence that demonstrates unambiguously that humans are descendants of fish. I have found plenty of examples, obviously, but I want to be able to cite the literature for one particular piece, for which I am still searching. So, if you would like to fire away with a (single, non-Gish Gallop) example of an evolutionary idea on which the consensus is 'wrong', then go ahead. Given that science is properly about disproving wrong ideas, there should be many examples to choose from.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Christianity, critical thinking skills?? You are drunk.

I seldom if ever drink. I've known too many atheists. Your side has the problems, Stuu. You know better. It is all excusing behavior, frankly. I have seen some inept Brit clergy. I understand why you are comparing, but you are wrong to blanket.

Be critical about men walking again after execution.

It is 'impossible' for you. Science is already working on cloning. In a nutshell, you are stuck in 20th century and don't seem to see how limited it is. Native Americans had Bayer aspirin a LONG time before we ever did. "Science" is trying to catch up yet. Don't let it or your limited purview become your religion or dogma.

Or will you agree that the executed don't walk again, but you would like to specially plead for one exception to that? Critical thinking my rear end.

It is 'better' thinking than your dismal here. Sorry. If there is a god, he certainly has resurrection power, undeniably. How could he not? YOU aren't thinking critically or well. Sorry, you are stuck with YOUR limitations. Other scientists and medical personnel are working on curing cancer, cloning, and longevity. You are behind the times and out of the loop.

You have no clue about how science actually works, do you.

▲You don't▲ You've followed Hitchens and Dawkins into absurd "Science as a dogma" religion. It is NOT a combatant against God or other religions. They and you'd be blatantly wrong on this count.

So there was nothing wrong with brontosaurus, then.

:think: Never existed VS exists! :idunno:

Only in your mind are there concerns 'beyond science'.

I don't know if you know how logic works, but you just conceded things beyond science and your 5 senses. :up:

Everything is an estimate. Look for the error analysis, that tells you how good the estimate is. Bishop Ussher's chronology of the genealogies, leading to his guess of the creation of the earth at 4004BCE is an estimate, and he did not put any uncertainties on it. I welcome your criticism of that in your mocking of the word estimate.

:think: I disagree. "Estimate" is non-exacting. I know what 2+2 is. No estimate and no need. Mathematics is more exacting than science.

 

[Stuu]

It is 'impossible' for you. Science is already working on cloning. In a nutshell, you are stuck in 20th century and don't seem to see how limited it is. Native Americans had Bayer aspirin a LONG time before we ever did. "Science" is trying to catch up yet. Don't let it or your limited purview become your religion or dogma.

Walking again after execution is impossible. You live in a fantasy world if you think 'science is working on it'.

It is 'better' thinking than your dismal here. Sorry. If there is a god, he certainly has resurrection power, undeniably. How could he not? YOU aren't thinking critically or well. Sorry, you are stuck with YOUR limitations. Other scientists and medical personnel are working on curing cancer, cloning, and longevity. You are behind the times and out of the loop.

Why would anyone need to work on a medical cure for cancer if your god can resurrect? Shouldn't they be working out the mechanisms of prayer, to find out what combinations of supplication to the dictator are most efficacious?

This thinking you advocate is about as critical as a vampire discussing the merits of a blood bank.

I don't know if you know how logic works, but you just conceded things beyond science and your 5 senses.

I don't think I did.

I disagree. "Estimate" is non-exacting. I know what 2+2 is. No estimate and no need. Mathematics is more exacting than science.

You have just proved you have no idea how science works.

Well done.

Stuart

 

[George Affleck]

Christianity has been around for 2,000 of the 185,000 year history of humanity. That's about 1% of human history. Easy come, easy go. No need to annihilate anything, just let it die the death it is currently enjoying. Brains seem primed to see gods, as we have discussed, so no doubt some new delusion will arise to scratch that irrational itch.

I wonder how old atheism is.

 

[Stripe]

I wonder how old atheism is.

:rotfl:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

I wonder how old atheism is.

At the absolute latest, in the 6th Century BCE Eastern philosophies rejected gods. But I'd say you would have to go back to the first tribe that invented god(s). There must have been at least one person who was willing to call the emperor's lack of clothes, even if it was privately to himself.

So I'd say atheism is as old as god belief. How old is that? Discoveries of what appears to be ritual art date back to 40,000 years ago, so I'd say atheism is at least that old.

Stuart

 

[George Affleck]

At the absolute latest, in the 6th Century BCE Eastern philosophies rejected gods. But I'd say you would have to go back to the first tribe that invented god(s). There must have been at least one person who was willing to call the emperor's lack of clothes, even if it was privately to himself.

So I'd say atheism is as old as god belief. How old is that? Discoveries of what appears to be ritual art date back to 40,000 years ago, so I'd say atheism is at least that old.

Stuart

So...based on how old religion is, you figure atheism is at least that old?
That's about the kind of logic I would expect from you.

Would you be prepared then to say that atheism is dependent on religion?

 

[Lon]

Walking again after execution is impossible. You live in a fantasy world if you think 'science is working on it'.

Really? You don't know of a machine that is used to shoot electricity into a chest? What else would that be? Look, you are arguing over stuff and I don't care if you can't cross the bridge. It is there. It is enough. Your hang-up. There is no point in discussing it further.

Why would anyone need to work on a medical cure for cancer if your god can resurrect? Shouldn't they be working out the mechanisms of prayer, to find out what combinations of supplication to the dictator are most efficacious?

To be like Him? To take 'our' responsibility for one another seriously? Come on Stuart. This is just becoming a cry-baby back and forth. Let's not go there, Okay? I was trying to pull you out of it with Cabinet, not see you go deeper and doubling down on your particular hang-ups. These don't mean "no god" they ONLY mean you don't like the way he works. That isn't atheism. Christopher Hitchens does this too. I wonder if he knows the difference sometimes.

This thinking you advocate is about as critical as a vampire discussing the merits of a blood bank.

GREAT metaphor. I'd suggest he'd know better than you and I about blood, no? I've never had a transfusion. You?

I don't think I did.

Yes you did, if even 'only' in my mind. You are describing that which you cannot touch as real in my mind. It is a large concession. Think more about it.

You have just proved you have no idea how science works.

No I certainly did not. Let's see:

I disagree. "Estimate" is non-exacting. I know what 2+2 is. No estimate and no need. Mathematics is more exacting than science.

Language is a bit like science, we can check hypothesis for facts:

"Estimate" v.
To calculate approximately (the amount, extent, magnitude, position, or value of something).
v.
To form an opinion about; evaluate: "While an author is yet living we estimate his powers by his worst performance” ( Samuel Johnson).

n.
The act of evaluating or appraising.

Wow! Look at that! You are wrong! You lose. I win! (not to be too snarky, please take it tongue 'n' cheek. It isn't that much of a victory, I just think it is one for whatever little such a thing is worth so it isn't a grind your face in it, just glad that at times "I'm right" is a bit easier to prove). :e4e:

Well done.

Stuart

This might have been a bit of a face rub attempt, I'm just happy to have slipped from it with little effort, and there was no attempt to turn it back on you other than the release (wrestler talk). -Lon

 

[Stuu]

Really? You don't know of a machine that is used to shoot electricity into a chest? What else would that be? Look, you are arguing over stuff and I don't care if you can't cross the bridge. It is there. It is enough. Your hang-up. There is no point in discussing it further.

Well there is if you are going to suggest that a person executed by a state could be resuscitated by defibrillation. I can only encourage your line of argument, one that makes a laughing stock of the central theme of christianity.

Christopher Hitchens does this too. I wonder if he knows the difference sometimes.

You do realise that Christopher Hitchens died in 2011.

Yes you did, if even 'only' in my mind. You are describing that which you cannot touch as real in my mind. It is a large concession. Think more about it.

I think it would be best to avoid thinking about what I do in your mind.

<Snipped some things that we had already been over>

This might have been a bit of a face rub attempt, I'm just happy to have slipped from it with little effort, and there was no attempt to turn it back on you other than the release (wrestler talk).

I sometimes wonder whether you would be an excellent wrestler through having a sense of freedom in your work simply because you refuse to believe your opponent even has you in a full nelson.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Well there is if you are going to suggest that a person executed by a state could be resuscitated by defibrillation. I can only encourage your line of argument, one that makes a laughing stock of the central theme of christianity.

No it doesn't. You are stuck in a material plain.

You do realise that Christopher Hitchens died in 2011.

I seem to remember that, but the conversation continues.

I think it would be best to avoid thinking about what I do in your mind.

No, I disagree. I once dreamed of a 'new' color. I cannot describe it to you nor remember what it looked like but it was amazing in my dream.

Look, Stuart, it is proof that things beyond our material plain exist. How? Because, according to you, my mind is a product of this material world. "IF" that were so, there is no such thing as unicorns or another color. Every time I see someone say 'produce a unicorn then!' They are acquiescing the argument. It is all over at that point. Something in 'my' mind AND 'theirs' is beyond this material existence. It is its own proof we are much more than the physical sum of our parts.

<Snipped some things that we had already been over>

:up:

I sometimes wonder whether you would be an excellent wrestler through having a sense of freedom in your work simply because you refuse to believe your opponent even has you in a full nelson.

Stuart

:think: A full-nelson is an illegal hold and one wins automatically if employed

The 'win' thing is more important for you than me. I'm not trying to harm you, just get you to realize your world is bigger and more is in it.

 

[Stripe]

The 'win' thing is more important for you than me. I'm not trying to harm you, just get you to realize your world is bigger and more is in it.

These philosophical discussions are interesting. It's just a pity that Darwinists always end up here instead of sticking to a discussion over the evidence.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Stuu]

I seem to remember that, but the conversation continues.

Jesus died 2000 years ago, but christians still seem to speak about him in the present tense, so I was wondering if it was the same with Christopher Hitchens.

Look, Stuart, it is proof that things beyond our material plain exist. How? Because, according to you, my mind is a product of this material world. "IF" that were so, there is no such thing as unicorns or another color. Every time I see someone say 'produce a unicorn then!' They are acquiescing the argument. It is all over at that point. Something in 'my' mind AND 'theirs' is beyond this material existence. It is its own proof we are much more than the physical sum of our parts.

If you are saying your god is an imagined abstract concept, then I agree.

A full-nelson is an illegal hold and one wins automatically if employed

You would think creationists might have appreciated the application of that metaphor to their 'arguments' by now.

The 'win' thing is more important for you than me. I'm not trying to harm you, just get you to realize your world is bigger and more is in it.

I think the 'win' is very important to you. Otherwise you would not write so much in such an impelling tone. You KNOW your god exists, right, you just KNOW it.

Stuart

 

[CabinetMaker]

Why would an omniscient god need to be inquisitive?

A few years ago, fractals were all the rage. You could write programs to generate them. You knew exactly what the program was going to do. You knew exactly what to change to make it do something slightly different. It was still fascinating and fun to watch even though you knew the results in advance.

No it isn't. To make it more cartoonishly simple, it is the difference between deciding that you will have to follow a set of instructions and complete the project of someone else to their specifications, or deciding to work on your own project.

You can always choose to work on your own project. That doesn't mean that anybody will be interested in your project when you are done with it.

It's an ignorant parody of what isn't actually going on in the real world, one often promoted by creationists on behalf of their conspiracy theory.

It has been observed in populations of animals. Human history of genocide tends to be much darker. And not uncommon.

In the case of your god's rules, the main threat of hurt appears to be the threatened actions of the god.

I have always believed that God's law is like any other law It describes the unacceptable behavior and proscribes the punishment. You are free to break the law. You can complain about the punishment proscribed by the law. You have not the authority to change either the law or the punishment. Your choice.

Here we could have been, discussing the apparent beauty of the universe, but you seem to have turned it back to a petty consideration of the selfish christian obsession with the behaviours of one species of primate on just one planet in one solar system. It doesn't matter that the Andromeda galaxy is going to collide with our galaxy in 4 billion years, or that newborn babies have such brilliant adaptive strategies for making their parents look after them, as long as we know in keen detail the creepy interest the god has in which apes have sex with which other apes, and in what circumstances, or whether the god is happy with any ape that might bow down to a statue.

See why a universe created by your god could not be beautiful? It would be a petty one.

You lead us here, I don't mind going here with you. It is interesting that you miss the point I was making. Be that as it may, God's universe IS beautiful. How could it not be?

That was the useful information

That is specifically what he said was not possible!

His name was Hawking, and it depends what you mean by suddenly. And I don't accept it as a matter of his authority.

So he is saying first there was nothing, not even a way to discuss it and "suddenly" there was everything.

Yes, that sounds like a fantasy to me, but worse, it is an assertion of magic in a case where we have a proper explanation for how it really happened.

You may never have the "proper explanation" that you so desperately seek. There may always be some mysteries left that science remains unable to solve. If there is nothing before everything and there is no way to describe that nothing, then how did we "suddenly" have everything? I find Hawking's explanation remarkably unhelpful in formulating any useful hypothesis to move forward.

That seems to be the standard christian answer to dwindling god belief, a strawman argument: we worship money instead. Well, I can't complain about living in poverty, obviously I have access to the internet and the basic necessities of life. But this characterisation, which springs up so often from christians has even led to people thinking the only meaning of the word materialism is the collection of money and material goods. I don't think I have done any kind of replacing of god worship with mammon worship, I hope to collect experiences that enrich my life as an African ape trying to make sense of the other apes and the universe as a whole, but I am a materialist in the sense of matter being the only thing that is real, and of course that has to extend nowdays to other things we know are real that you wouldn't call matter, but that is the principle nonetheless.

Which is why I say a depraved person might reach up and catch the hand of christianity, but he could reach a little further to the stars, and therefore not have to entertain the depravity of christianity.

And there could be an argument made for even economic materialism still being more morally defensible than christianity anyway.[/quote] I find your explanation here fascinating. Whether it is money or experiences, the most revealing thing about this is the number of times you use "I". That goes to the heart and soul of what I meant when I said we desire the accumulation of wealth. It is the focus on "I".

No, you conceal them on the inside of your coat.

Not really. I understand that science is constantly progressing and we learn new and interesting things. I have just never seen anything that says because of our "vast" scientific knowledge, God doesn't exist.

I guess it was time for another statement from the meme. You had been telling me what you think for far too long there.

I have yielded to God as my Sovereign King. As such, I accept in faith that scripture is what God intended for us to have. It is comments like this that lead me to believe that you have gone from Atheist to Anti-Theist. You do rather mock faith and people of faith.

Your god is not acceptable to me then. I have friends who are gay. Any god that denies that their love for one another, expressed however they feel they want to, is a petty god worthy of condemnation for its hatred. That should be our collective enemy, the god of hating what it made.

You are welcome to your opinion. Keep in mind that it is not only homosexuals that face God's wrath for sexual deviancy. Sex outside of marriage is as immoral and homosexual sex. Affairs, prostitutes, playing the field and the like for straight people is equally wrong.

No, because religions have no correction mechanisms.

God has said He never changes. He has laid out His expectations for us. As God is the final authority, faith cannot self-correct. Religion on the other hand, does change to please the people to bring them, and their money, in the doors to fill the pews. Not all of course, but many.

I cannot respect faith as a basis for anything. When you talk as the meme, it looks to me like you are the kind of person whom I should very strongly distrust. When you talk as yourself, that beer you suggested sounds welcome. I think you are a clear case of the under title of Christopher Hitchens' book, 'How religion poisons everything'.

I am but one person comprised of both faith in God and an engineer. I understand science better than most and I use it daily. I am not ashamed of my faith in God. If you want to have a beer then be prepared for both.

There is no such thing. It is not a valid concept. You need a different word than cause. Uncaused is just as bad, because that denies that there could be mechanistic reasons relating to the properties of space-time, which of course we cannot know, because any event where matter and energy arise from borrowing from the process of inflation means there was nothing 'left from last time' (another impossible concept).
But you still have an uncaused cause, apparently. Your god can do anything you want to invent. It can do magic and just exist 'outside space-time' (another invalid concept if your god is capable of interacting with matter and energy). Any accusations made by the religious attacking Big Bang cosmology as uncaused are just bald hypocrisy.

God has always existed. He is without begininning and without end. He just has always been. I'm good with that. Remember, I believe in miracles.

At least in a brutal totalitarian regime the people can escape by dying. But not even that is possible in your brutal totalitarian regime, which celebrates as its central theme the killing of a human.

Don't forget about the resurection of the Human! Redemption is not possible without the resurection.

I don't think you will be allowed to believe that last part. Isn't the seeking of the knowledge of man a bad thing, and isn't the original attempt to seek knowledge the whole basis of your compulsory but impossible mission of repairing your 'relationship with god'? Judeo-christianity is one big celebration of ignorance.

Your ingnornce regarding scripture is showing. The seeking of knowledge is not forbidden. What Adam and Eve got into trouble for was seeking the knowledge of good and evil.
Another celebration of ignorance. Thank goodness the god has grown that Tree of Knowledge well out of our reach now, eh?

How many ways are there to god?

Depends on whether you have heard the Gospel or not. If you have heard the Gospel then there is only one way. If you have never heard the gospel then God's perfect justice will deal with those people accordingly.

Yes, and I have used my conscience to do that. And you should be saying that my conscience is god-given. So you are telling me that I should not trust this 'divine gift'.

Stuart

You have surpressed your God given conscience and replaced it with your own conscience of human wisdom. I would not trust your conscience.

 

[6days]

Empirical science showed us that the Big Bang can't have a cause

No.... that is an illogical religious belief that is not supported by emperical science.


Empirical science and logic shows that anything which begins to exist must have a cause.

I still owe you an example of one piece of empirical evidence that demonstrates unambiguously that humans are descendants of fish. I have found plenty of examples.....

Unambiguos as Haeckels drawings, I'm sure.

I want to be able to cite the literature for one particular piece, for which I am still searching.

Yes... I'm sure you do want that. However Stuu, you are wasting your time. There is no such thing as unambiguous evidence for the 'fish's to man belief.

I asked if you wanted to compare against evolutionary ideas science has disproved.

So, if you would like to fire away ...

Sure... lets start way back, then we can work our way up to modern times. Science has proven the Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics to be false.

 

[Lon]

Jesus died 2000 years ago, but christians still seem to speak about him in the present tense, so I was wondering if it was the same with Christopher Hitchens.

If you are saying your god is an imagined abstract concept, then I agree.

No. And no you wouldn't yet agree if you knew what I was saying logically. It adds up to there being a god and that atheism is logically untenable. I don't really think you'd agree with that, once the stakes are on the table. You'd be losing more than you imagine.

You would think creationists might have appreciated the application of that metaphor to their 'arguments' by now.

I think the 'win' is very important to you. Otherwise you would not write so much in such an impelling tone. You KNOW your god exists, right, you just KNOW it.

Stuart

The win is important 'for you.' For me it isn't a matter of anything. I have no need other than having you knowing such and so. There are benefits if you acquiesce the win but even if not, it is what I want for you. The benefit would be entirely mutual. I cannot 'describe' red with your 'no context blind.' I cannot explain God with your 'no context blind' either. I CAN suggest that you get eyes that see. It is better than anecdotal descriptions.

 

[Stuu]

A few years ago, fractals were all the rage. You could write programs to generate them. You knew exactly what the program was going to do. You knew exactly what to change to make it do something slightly different. It was still fascinating and fun to watch even though you knew the results in advance.

So your god knew the flood would be necessary, but just wanted to see how things played out. That's the implication of what you are saying. Is that what you mean?

You can always choose to work on your own project. That doesn't mean that anybody will be interested in your project when you are done with it.

So your god will not punish me by burning in sulfur if I know about its project but choose to ignore it, and just carry on as if it doesn't exist? In terms of the Judeo-christian fantasy, there is no choice, it's either commit to being a robot in the 'fun to watch' divine project, or burn, or possibly both.

It has been observed in populations of animals. Human history of genocide tends to be much darker. And not uncommon.

What exactly has been observed in populations of animals?

I have always believed that God's law is like any other law It describes the unacceptable behavior and proscribes the punishment. You are free to break the law. You can complain about the punishment proscribed by the law. You have not the authority to change either the law or the punishment. Your choice.

Well, I don't have 'authority' to change the law, but I do have the power to change the law through the democratic process. So what you are describing is exactly the kind of system of totalitarian regime that the US went into war against in the case of Germany in the Second World war, and against the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Your country spilled the blood of its people to protect your freedoms, and here you are advocating for totalitarian dictatorship.

You lead us here, I don't mind going here with you. It is interesting that you miss the point I was making. Be that as it may, God's universe IS beautiful. How could it not be?

Ask Einstein what beauty is. Surely he would have said the comprehensibility of the universe, the thing he called god. I would tend to agree, that the beauty has to involve the natural human reaction to the appearance of the universe and the satisfaction of natural human curiosity in the investigation of the mechanisms behind the effects one considers beautiful.

So, do we have a universe that is essentially the application of gravity, with that single principle opening up in many different ways, leading to all the effects we observe? Or actually is it that the universe is incomprehensible, and is a patchwork of incomprehensible magic, deployed with the intention of deceiving us, and making a mockery of our instinct for finding simple, underlying principles?

The former is beautiful the latter is ugly, even as just a possibility. That's the beholding of beauty in my eye.

So he is saying first there was nothing, not even a way to discuss it and "suddenly" there was everything.

Yes, pretty much.

You may never have the "proper explanation" that you so desperately seek. There may always be some mysteries left that science remains unable to solve. If there is nothing before everything and there is no way to describe that nothing, then how did we "suddenly" have everything? I find Hawking's explanation remarkably unhelpful in formulating any useful hypothesis to move forward.

You don't understand Hawking's explanation. Might it be worth investigating what it says before dismissing it and embracing blind magic in the place of the state of the art of our current knowledge.

That goes to the heart and soul of what I meant when I said we desire the accumulation of wealth. It is the focus on "I".

That's just a platitude, isn't it.

Not really. I understand that science is constantly progressing and we learn new and interesting things. I have just never seen anything that says because of our "vast" scientific knowledge, God doesn't exist.

Well you have never said what a god is, so what is there to say about it?

I have yielded to God as my Sovereign King. As such, I accept in faith that scripture is what God intended for us to have. It is comments like this that lead me to believe that you have gone from Atheist to Anti-Theist. You do rather mock faith and people of faith.

I mock faith, certainly, but not people (apart from public creationists). Are you faith or are you a human? There is a clear distinction in my head. Is there in yours?

You are welcome to your opinion. Keep in mind that it is not only homosexuals that face God's wrath for sexual deviancy. Sex outside of marriage is as immoral and homosexual sex. Affairs, prostitutes, playing the field and the like for straight people is equally wrong.

Your god demands love on pain of death for itself but bans love between humans in whom, presumably, it instilled an instinct for love. This god's supposed commands to love are morally bankrupt. It is a supreme hypocrite.

God has said He never changes. He has laid out His expectations for us. As God is the final authority, faith cannot self-correct. Religion on the other hand, does change to please the people to bring them, and their money, in the doors to fill the pews. Not all of course, but many.

These divine requirements, or rather petty fantasy rules of a fascist death cult, have never been fit for a just existence as a human. No wonder selection pressures are starting to reduce the frequency of this christian meme in the population at large. The death of christianity can't come fast enough in the interests of basic social justice across the world.

God has always existed.

Platitude 2.

He is without begininning and without end.

Platitude 3.

He just has always been.

Platitude 4.

I'm good with that. Remember, I believe in miracles.

Not sure what kind of engineer you are. If civil, then I'm not sure whether I would have been keen to drive over one of your bridges. If electronic, not sure if I would have plugged in one of your devices. If mechanical, not sure I would have ridden on one of your fairground rides. If software, probably would not have logged on to do my banking on the site you designed.
I believe those who believe in miracles are not to be trusted.

Don't forget about the resurection of the Human! Redemption is not possible without the resurection.

And resurrection is not possible without slaughter, and even if it was, you still have not justified other possibilities. Why did Jesus have to die, again? That's a justification for the embarrassment of having your cult leader executed as a troublemaker. Turn it into a martyrdom, like all tin pot cults do.
And redemption is not necessary. That is as invented as the claim of resurrection. There is nothing wrong with humans, that's just a petty rule of your club. By all means call yourself depraved (I don't think you should), but keep your opinion to yourself when it comes to the rest of us. There was nothing wrong with anything the first time we were born.

Your ingnornce regarding scripture is showing. The seeking of knowledge is not forbidden.

You do know what is written about that, for example by the arch-zealot Saul of Tarsus, for example, I take it.

What Adam and Eve got into trouble for was seeking the knowledge of good and evil.
Another celebration of ignorance. Thank goodness the god has grown that Tree of Knowledge well out of our reach now, eh?

I don't give such absurdly irrelevant concepts much thought, to be honest. Humans are apes with a long ancestry, and our ethical codes are significantly embedded in our DNA. We also have much social discourse as a way of determining how ethical codes are applied. To think an ancient Jewish myth has any bearing on how we come about our morals is ludicrous.

Depends on whether you have heard the Gospel or not. If you have heard the Gospel then there is only one way. If you have never heard the gospel then God's perfect justice will deal with those people accordingly.

I think our justice, imperfect as it is, is far better than the 'justice' you claim is the belief system of your god. I think your god should be ignored. It is clearly a petulant bully, one that has a totalitarian system of retribution, similar-sounding to that of Stalin, the way you describe it.

You have surpressed your God given conscience and replaced it with your own conscience of human wisdom. I would not trust your conscience.

I have to say there is no 'beauty of the universe' in what you write as your Dr. Jeckel meme character.

It sounds like your god is pretty pathetic at the important engineering. It's created consciences fail, so it ends up having to undertake retributive punishment. What a petty, ugly, homophobic, vindictive, totalitarian, brutal death cult christianity is. And that's just on your description of it.

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

No.... that is an illogical religious belief that is not supported by emperical science.

Illogical: yes. But who said the beginning of the universe has to conform to logic?
Religious: no, it requires no gods of any kind, whatever they are.
Empirical science: Big Bang cosmology is entirely consistent with empirical evidence, the basis of empirical science. Specifically, it explains the relative abundance of light elements, the Cosmic Background Radiation, the large scale structure, and Hubble's Law regarding red shift and distance from us as observers.

Empirical science and logic shows that anything which begins to exist must have a cause.

Science and logic both assume it. Science does not require it, it's just a convenient way of relating one effect to another effect. But everything could be a subsequent effect of something else. So are they causes or effects, and is a temporal relationship required?

Sure... lets start way back, then we can work our way up to modern times. Science has proven the Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics to be false.

Was there ever enough evidence for it, for it to be called a theory in the first place? There could be some subtle epigenetic effects, but I agree, Lamarckian Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics was proved false, and has been wrong ever since Aristotle believed in it. Mendel was the first to demonstrate the genetic nature of heredity. If he had written his paper in English, probably Darwin would have read it and given up on his view of the heredity of acquired characteristics.

Next?

Geocentrism?

Life force?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

No. And no you wouldn't yet agree if you knew what I was saying logically. It adds up to there being a god and that atheism is logically untenable. I don't really think you'd agree with that, once the stakes are on the table. You'd be losing more than you imagine.

Looks like threats of being beaten up behind the bikesheds after school are the main means of attempted conversion by christians. So much for the untenability, and the blah blah blah.

The win is important 'for you.' For me it isn't a matter of anything. I have no need other than having you knowing such and so. There are benefits if you acquiesce the win but even if not, it is what I want for you. The benefit would be entirely mutual. I cannot 'describe' red with your 'no context blind.' I cannot explain God with your 'no context blind' either. I CAN suggest that you get eyes that see. It is better than anecdotal descriptions.

You haven't been able to describe your god in any comprehensible way at all. It is as if you haven't seen 'red' either, or for that matter pink giant eagles landing. How about a photograph of your god, or if not, why not?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

So your god knew the flood would be necessary, but just wanted to see how things played out. That's the implication of what you are saying. Is that what you mean?

Darwinists squabbling. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk