atheism and its follower are not bright

[turzovka]

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

Thank you turzovka
The way I envision proving a consensus on God is by AGREEMENT.
This is still faith based. So it is a matter of each person having their own "faith based understanding,"
and all of us AGREEING we are talking about the same thing/same source even if our ways vary a bit.
Fair enough?

It's like acknowledging NONE of us can PROVE "what we dreamed last night"
But if we all agree what DREAMS means and what we are referring to,
we can generally AGREE we are talking about the same thing.
Though we can't technically prove the content.

Your first paragraph may be charitable and useful in some capacity for many, but it does not ring true with me. Nor do I agree believing God is real is (exclusively) faith based. (Not for many like me.) On the other hand, Catholic teaching does say there are very good morals and/or truths in all major faiths and that any person can be saved (unbelievers, etc.) just as they presently are or what they believe. The Lord is merciful far beyond our understanding.

But Jesus Christ died on the cross and then rose from the dead. That was a seminal and defining moment for all of humanity. Given that knowledge and understanding, this no longer allows Christians to wander off onto other ideas of salvation or life’s purpose. Nor does it allow us to be cowards in order to avoid any kind of disagreement. Quite the contrary, we are called upon to witness to all corners of the world.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would I have any need to disprove the existence of God, Thor, Bigfoot or Atlantis?

I have yet to see anyone have the language or the logic to prove the existence of a god- ANY god- out of the thousands and thousands of gods humans worship- or have worshiped.

Not believing in your fairy tales has no more faith implications than not collecting stamps has hobby implications.

If you have no need, then you are comfortable in your faith, which is fine. Just don't sugar coat with pseudo-intellectual nonsense..

From the beginning I have been very clear- I don't believe in a god- any god.

There is nothing pseudo intellectual about it- I don't have to spend time pondering why I don't believe the fairy tales that you or others believe in- any more than I have to ponder why I don't collect stamps, like millions of Americans do.

I just don't.

And I don't go around calling you stupid because you happen to believe in your fairy tales.

Matter of fact, except for when people insist on telling me that I am stupid for not believing in those fairy tales, or that I or others should be living our lives according to their interpretation of those fairy tales- I am very respectful of people of faith. Believe what you will believe.

I do not think Jake is asking you to believe in any particular God. (He’s not exactly popular himself around here.)

I think he did call you pseudo-intellectual and that probably refers to the fact you either ignore the fact that rocks cannot become human beings, given enough time water and sunlight ---- or you simply think there are natural processes that could make that possible.

And for us, this is so anti-science and anti-logical and without sane reasoning we find it utterly absurd..

Well I think Jake can explain himself what he means.

I have explained myself to you three times now- and each time you don't understand what I have said and continue to portray my statements differently than what I have said. Not much point in explaining to you a fourth time.

I find your beliefs to be utterly absurd and irrational.
But I don't care that you believe something I find utterly absurd and irrational so long as you don't insist on attacking me for not believing what you believe.

And the grounds for your belief are equally silly. That's the point. None of us have the logic or the language to "prove" either or. Accept that. I am not popular with Turzovka because he believes the RC is the "it" church and I have fun with that.

Do you go around telling people who don't collect stamps that the grounds for them not collecting stamps are 'silly'?

I find your beliefs to be utterly absurd and irrational. But I am fine with you having such beliefs as long as you don't attack me for not having the same beliefs.

When you do attack me because of your faith- I am okay with responding by pointing out that your belief in fairy tales is absurd and irrational. That you feel a need to attack me because I don't join you in your irrational beliefs is an issue you have.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

Yes, it really is that simple.

And the only comeback (of sorts) they have is then "well then who made God?"

Which has no bearing on the subject, because it does not matter or change anything. The fact remains, without God or an intelligent designer and creator, we could never be. Something did not come from nothing, and then from that that mass of inanimate inorganic sludge or rocks could NEVER assemble itself into complex organic orderly life by chance! So get over yourselves and quit pretending you are being reasonable.

Actually me not knowing how everything came into being has no bearing on my lack of belief in any of your fairy tales.

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory- but has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any fairy tales. I don't believe in your fairy tales because I don't believe in your fairy tales. There is no evidence that any of your fairy tales are true.

I don't believe in your fairy tales just as I don't collect stamps.

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.ar.

First of all let me say that no Christians I know feel a need to 'prove God exists' - most consider God to be a matter of personal faith and that no evidence is necessary- and frankly that makes sense because
Secondly I have never seen any 'empirical evidence' of God or god.

Your opinion on how evolution could not have happened is not 'empirical evidence'

 

[Syriusly]

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

Your OP was not honest, so why do you demand from others the honesty you lack?

My OP and my conclusions are right on. You have neither the logic nor language to defend the faith of atheism with attacking theism.

Your OP was a stupid and bigoted attack on those who do not share your religious beliefs.

It is fundamentally no different than a Christian saying that Jews are not bright because they don't believe in Jesus.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually me not knowing how everything came into being has no bearing on my lack of belief in any of your fairy tales.

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory- but has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any fairy tales. I don't believe in your fairy tales because I don't believe in your fairy tales. There is no evidence that any of your fairy tales are true.

I don't believe in your fairy tales just as I don't collect stamps.

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

'We know' i.e. you have faith.

But no evidence.

 

[jillian]

Just a simple fact.

You guys are not the logic queens you believe you are. Sorry: you are not very sharp,

your premise is faulty.

 

[jillian]

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

Your OP was not honest, so why do you demand from others the honesty you lack?

My OP and my conclusions are right on. You have neither the logic nor language to defend the faith of atheism with attacking theism.

Your OP was a stupid and bigoted attack on those who do not share your religious beliefs.

It is fundamentally no different than a Christian saying that Jews are not bright because they don't believe in Jesus.

luckily the IQ and education levels don't bear that out.

 

[turzovka]

Yes, it really is that simple.

And the only comeback (of sorts) they have is then "well then who made God?"

Which has no bearing on the subject, because it does not matter or change anything. The fact remains, without God or an intelligent designer and creator, we could never be. Something did not come from nothing, and then from that that mass of inanimate inorganic sludge or rocks could NEVER assemble itself into complex organic orderly life by chance! So get over yourselves and quit pretending you are being reasonable.

Actually me not knowing how everything came into being has no bearing on my lack of belief in any of your fairy tales.

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory- but has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any fairy tales. I don't believe in your fairy tales because I don't believe in your fairy tales. There is no evidence that any of your fairy tales are true.

I don't believe in your fairy tales just as I don't collect stamps.

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.ar.

First of all let me say that no Christians I know feel a need to 'prove God exists' - most consider God to be a matter of personal faith and that no evidence is necessary- and frankly that makes sense because
Secondly I have never seen any 'empirical evidence' of God or god.

Your opinion on how evolution could not have happened is not 'empirical evidence'

Fine, and all well and good for those Christians. I am pretty sure if they are devout Christians they have no doubt He exists, so that is tantamount to my saying I am certain He exists. We both practice the same for most intents and purposes.

Your opinion is only your opinion to hold dear to if you so choose. I already explained to another poster that no science or lay person can begin to impress upon me how life could have ever originated and then developed spectacularly in a trillion ways without an intelligent designer. If you cannot use logic and reason to come to that conclusion, well that is where we differ --- vastly.

Secondly, I also already said I have many reasons and a great deal of empirical evidence for proof of the God of the Bible as totally real and the One and Only God. And all those reasons only add to the sensible conclusion this God directed the evolution process.

But I think we have covered this well enough for a day. You keep saying there is no empirical evidence for God and I keep saying you could not be more mistaken. But Jesus did say an evil age is eager for a sign but no sign will be given it except that of Jonah (Jonah three days in the belly of the whale being a symbolic reference to Jesus in the tomb and His resurrection). I say ‘no sign’ because too many unbelievers want to be unbelievers so they reject all signs that have been manifested --- and all too often with the most flimsy or hyper-implausible ways of trying to explain them away.

I, personally, am not going to back down to anyone here who wants to be big and brave with their own ideas or claims but then I am scolded for being bold or challenging in return. I am not here to tell them “Im Ok, you’re Ok” because that is often exactly what the devil wants us to do, make everyone feel good about themselves. No, as Ecclesiastes says, “there is a time to embrace, a time to refrain from embrace. A time to be silent, a time to speak.” I will take my chances.

 

[Syriusly]

Antigodists, as opposed to atheists, if you try to take religious values out of politics, you will be crushed politically and socially.

Now that is pseudo intellectual crap.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually me not knowing how everything came into being has no bearing on my lack of belief in any of your fairy tales.

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory- but has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any fairy tales. I don't believe in your fairy tales because I don't believe in your fairy tales. There is no evidence that any of your fairy tales are true.

I don't believe in your fairy tales just as I don't collect stamps.

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.ar.

First of all let me say that no Christians I know feel a need to 'prove God exists' - most consider God to be a matter of personal faith and that no evidence is necessary- and frankly that makes sense because
Secondly I have never seen any 'empirical evidence' of God or god.

Your opinion on how evolution could not have happened is not 'empirical evidence'

. I already explained to another poster that no science or lay person can begin to impress upon me how life could have ever originated and then developed spectacularly in a trillion ways without an intelligent designer. .

And I believe it.

You will never accept any answer other than your God created everything.

So long as you don't demand that I believe in your fairy tale, I really don't care.

But when you claim that you have 'evidence' and your evidence is nothing more than your opinion and faith in miracles- I will challenge those claims.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.ar.

First of all let me say that no Christians I know feel a need to 'prove God exists' - most consider God to be a matter of personal faith and that no evidence is necessary- and frankly that makes sense because
Secondly I have never seen any 'empirical evidence' of God or god.

Your opinion on how evolution could not have happened is not 'empirical evidence'

. I already explained to another poster that no science or lay person can begin to impress upon me how life could have ever originated and then developed spectacularly in a trillion ways without an intelligent designer. .

And I believe it.

You will never accept any answer other than your God created everything.

So long as you don't demand that I believe in your fairy tale, I really don't care.

But when you claim that you have 'evidence' and your evidence is nothing more than your opinion and faith in miracles- I will challenge those claims.

We don't care if you believe in your silly 'nothingness', Sy, just don't think you have evidence that invalidates our beliefs: your logic and language remain insufficient to do that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am willing to go gently along with atheists and theists who are polite to others who believe differently.

I started the OP to flush the haters on both sides, and I succeeded well. The antiGodists are every bit as silly and dim as the hard theists on this issue.

Crushing psuedo-intellectual activist antiGodism and theism in the constitutional arena is a certainty if it violates others' rights to expression and action on values.

Now behave yourselves, yeah?

 

[Syriusly]

I am willing to go gently along with atheists and theists who are polite to others who believe differently.

I started the OP to flush the haters on both sides, and I succeeded well. The antiGodists are every bit as silly and dim as the hard theists on this issue.

Crushing antiGodism in the constitutional arena is a certainty if it violates others' rights to expression and action on values.

Now behave yourselves, yeah?

Again what crap Jake.

You started out this thread attacking those who don't have a faith that you have.

All you have exposed so far is your own intolerance towards others who do not have your faith.

 

[turzovka]

You will never accept any answer other than your God created everything. But when you claim that you have 'evidence' and your evidence is nothing more than your opinion and faith in miracles- I will challenge those claims.

Please do, I enjoy challenges, as should we all. You can start with my post #86 if interested.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am willing to go gently along with atheists and theists who are polite to others who believe differently.

I started the OP to flush the haters on both sides, and I succeeded well. The antiGodists are every bit as silly and dim as the hard theists on this issue.

Crushing antiGodism in the constitutional arena is a certainty if it violates others' rights to expression and action on values.

Now behave yourselves, yeah?

Again what crap Jake.

You started out this thread attacking those who don't have a faith that you have.

All you have exposed so far is your own intolerance towards others who do not have your faith.

I started this OP to flush you, among others. Got you with your eyes in the headlights startled expression. I don't care if you believe as I do. I do care that you be polite about it. I won't say a word as long as you are polite about it.

 

[Syriusly]

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.ar.

First of all let me say that no Christians I know feel a need to 'prove God exists' - most consider God to be a matter of personal faith and that no evidence is necessary- and frankly that makes sense because
Secondly I have never seen any 'empirical evidence' of God or god.

Your opinion on how evolution could not have happened is not 'empirical evidence'

. I already explained to another poster that no science or lay person can begin to impress upon me how life could have ever originated and then developed spectacularly in a trillion ways without an intelligent designer. .

And I believe it.

You will never accept any answer other than your God created everything.

So long as you don't demand that I believe in your fairy tale, I really don't care.

But when you claim that you have 'evidence' and your evidence is nothing more than your opinion and faith in miracles- I will challenge those claims.

We don't care if you believe in your silly 'nothingness', Sy, just don't think you have evidence that invalidates our beliefs: your logic and language remain insufficient to do that.

Clearly you do care- since you started a thread title "Atheism and its followers are not bright"

IF I started a thread titled "Christianity- and its followers are stupid" I would expect to be attacked for religious bigotry. And correctly so.

 

[Syriusly]

I am willing to go gently along with atheists and theists who are polite to others who believe differently.

I started the OP to flush the haters on both sides, and I succeeded well. The antiGodists are every bit as silly and dim as the hard theists on this issue.

Crushing antiGodism in the constitutional arena is a certainty if it violates others' rights to expression and action on values.

Now behave yourselves, yeah?

Again what crap Jake.

You started out this thread attacking those who don't have a faith that you have.

All you have exposed so far is your own intolerance towards others who do not have your faith.

I started this OP to flush you, among others. Got you with your eyes in the headlights startled expression. I don't care if you believe as I do. I do care that you be polite about it. I won't say a word as long as you are polite about it.

Why the hell should I be 'polite' in a thread with the bigoted title 'Atheism and its followers are not bright'?

Why don't you follow your own 'suggestion'?

Why don't you remove that log in your own eye first?

 

[Syriusly]

I am a Christian but can see value in other faith systems.

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

You are painting all of us with one broad brush, so you are the one who is not too smart.

And not very honest.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually me not knowing how everything came into being has no bearing on my lack of belief in any of your fairy tales.

The Big Bang theory is an interesting theory- but has nothing to do with my lack of belief in any fairy tales. I don't believe in your fairy tales because I don't believe in your fairy tales. There is no evidence that any of your fairy tales are true.

I don't believe in your fairy tales just as I don't collect stamps.

Actually, you saying "you not knowing" is tantamount to saying “I am afraid to confront a reasonable question that should have a reasonable answer.”

And that reasonable answer is this >>> No way in the world could a rock turn into organic life and no way in the world could the most rudimentary forms of life assemble eyes, ears, organs, spines. Et al. by chance!!

But you cannot get yourself to admit to that so you pretend this all could have happened without an outside intelligent force or designer.

We are not asking you to say it was the God of the Bible who was the Creator. We have not come close to that discussion. But you jump ahead because you are afraid to address the first part of the logical proposition.

First of all by stating the current hypotheses for angiogenesis as "rock turns into organic life" is a misrepresentation and a straw man fallacy.

Secondly, that you're incredulous about the theory of common descent and the processes of evolution is not a good argument and is also an argument from incredulity fallacy.

Thirdly, that no one knows the processes from which reality comes or how life formed is not an argument for a creator but is god-of-the-gaps fallacy.

Lastly, even if one acknowledges that the universe is apparently designed, it does not mean the universe is actually designed because that cannot be known with any real confidence (it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis) nor does it mean the designer is the God of the Bible or even a deity at all.

The best argument, in my opinion, based on evidence for a "god" is the fine-tuning argument and it in no way supports only that the God of the Bible designed the Universe that way, that any deity is responsible for the fine-tuning, or that the fine-tuning is even intentional.

To think the argument for God is dependent on the need to prove evolution needed an intelligent designer would be a major fallacy. God can be proven in a myriad of ways via empirical evidence.

Secondly, the argument from incredulity, and I do not care what the wanting science body wants to argue, is a heavily and strongly reasoned argument. For anyone to think that eyeballs and brains can just happen is absurd. And yet that is what atheism argues and Richard Dawkins. No will, no intelligence, no plan, just the illusion of design. And they want to throw incredulity in our face?

Back to God. Once evidence for Him can be shown in other ways, then it stands to reason God would have had a fundamental part in creation. God of the gaps, yes, absolutely. Science is a great benefit to man and a great harm unto itself. Just because science has uncovered many answers about life and the universe in no way shape or form does should it think it has the answers to that which up until now they are in total darkness. Of course, if science and atheism were not so filled with pride and foolishness it would recognize all of the signs and wonders God has provided over history. Including life after death experiences in the thousands to give man a glimpse of life after death. Major miracles prophesied by very young children that came true on the exact day it was predicted such as at FAtima. The Virgin Mary appearing to 250,000 Egyptians over the course of 20 evenings in 1968, all forgotten by those who do not want to believe. Weeping statues with no scientific explanation. The Shroud of Turin with qualities on that cloth that would be totally impossible for some medieval forger to dream up, much less make happen. Science today cannot even duplicate those qualities. But man is too proud or man is too full of himself where he wants to have his pleasures and not be accountable to any Creator who is telling Him something He does not want to hear.

Dear turzovka
Trying to prove that God exists is like trying to prove the existence of
* love
* truth or wisdom
* universal laws
* nature or forces of life and or where those come from
* collective knowledge or good will for all humanity

You can see this gets beyond human limits quickly. Clearly all these things we take for granted are faith based. At best we agree what to call these things, so we know what we're talking about when we refer to them. But we can't possibly prove where life came from or what all the laws in the universe are

We merely AGREE to use symbols in either science or religion to represent global phenomena or universal principles. And even those are relative and different for each person or audience

The concepts may be universal but the expressions and systems of representation are relative. Regardless if we cannot prove any of this definitively, we can agree what terms to use to refer to certain concepts or contexts. and try to agree how to apply systems consistently.

I will not argue with your philosophy / theology. Nor can I improve upon your kinder approach.

However, as for me, no, I do not agree with you that God cannot be proven. I know “He is” just as sure as I know I am. Just as certain of His reality as were so many saints who had visions of Christ and visits from the heavens. Perhaps our interpretations of faith and how it is applied also differ greatly. I love all Christians and all people, but I also embrace Catholicism as the highest fullness of truth as revealed by our Lord (for many reasons).

I seriously doubt the Mother of God would not tell 3 devout young shepherd children on July 13th, 1917 to tell all the people present that she will perform a miracle on October 13th so that all will know she is from God and what these young children are reporting is from God ---- if in fact it was not God speaking to them. And what occurred at Fatima on October 13th in front of 70,000 people who trudged through the mud and rain to be present was a spectacular miracle of the sun. Soon after the three Portugese children arrived around noon that day in the rain, then so did the Virgin Mother in a flash of lightning above a small oak (but seen only by the three children). Then Lucia pointed up to the sky and the dark clouds were split open by a blazing the sun. The sun then “began to dance” as the spellbound crowd reported. It defied cosmic laws and bounced and spun like a pinwheel shooting off multi-colored rays that engulfed the entire landscape. The ground and people’s faces turned red, blue, green, yellow. Then after 12 minutes the sun grew extremely large, turned blood red, and charged the earth. All thought it was the end but then suddenly the sun receded to its normal position and all was peaceful. - - - No one there doubted any longer.

Marxist journalists there to mock this prophecy humbly reported the truth in their Lisbon paper. Scientists there gave testimony to what they witnessed for themselves. Essentials: The Facts: The Miracle of the Sun There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies recorded both in print and on film. A number of eye witnesses from 10 and 20 miles away testified to the same phenomenon. In addition, they testified to the fact that their totally rain-soaked clothing and the ground was bone dry after this miracle. The prime message of Mary --- repentance and prayer, especially the rosary.

There is much more to be said about this one miracle alone. But there is no doubt this was a supernatural manifestation from God. Unless someone wants to boldly state it was of the devil --- there are no other plausible explanations. The skeptics and unbelievers have nothing to counter this --- it is the evidence that demands a verdict.

So you can hold fast to the position that belief in God rests solely on faith, and I hold to the fact that God has provided so many signs and wonders over history there is no need for faith to believe in Him. We know.

So Turzo- how is this 'evidence of God'?

 

[edthecynic]

I have no trouble with atheism if its proponents are being honest.

Your OP was not honest, so why do you demand from others the honesty you lack?

My OP and my conclusions are right on. You have neither the logic nor language to defend the faith of atheism with attacking theism.

Hogwash!
Your OP dishonestly defined Creationism as Atheism.