Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
1.Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God has no cause.
3. God does not exist.
Your fellow ID'ers / creationists generally insist on a 6,000 year old earth. There's a lot of fudging the numbers that takes place to redefine Genesis with "time periods" but that seems dishonest to me.
No, they don't. ID'ers believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and a 4 billion year old earth.
So why the requirement for gods?
Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
1.Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God has no cause.
3. God does not exist.
Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
1.Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God has no cause.
3. God does not exist.
I totally agree with you man, i also remember aother famous Quote of Epicurus
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
No, they don't. ID'ers believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and a 4 billion year old earth.
So why the requirement for gods?
I let you figure that one out.
Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
1.Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God has no cause.
3. God does not exist.
This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
God has always existed.
God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an eternal universe. Einstein believed the universe had always existed and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
1.Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God has no cause.
3. God does not exist.
I totally agree with you man, i also remember aother famous Quote of Epicurus
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
You guys aren't the first to grapple with these theological arguments, and you won't be the last. God allows evil because he created us as free agents. The necessary construct of the TOE is you do not have Free Will. Even now, you don't really have a choice to respond to me. You are just an organism reacting to stimuli, with the response already programmed into your genetic makeup. For you, free will is just an illusion.
Conscious Evolution and Free Will? « Evolutionary Philosophy
Evolutionary philosophy?!?!? What the freak? Hollie, I thought evolution was just science and nothing more.
You should do not believe liberals!
Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
So why the requirement for gods?
I let you figure that one out.
I'm not surprised at your answer. The timeframes described for earth history and for the age of the universe (which those evil scientists have factual data to support) , make your gods and all gods superfluous. While creationists / I'D'ers (one and the same), will reel and deny the fact of "evilution", there is no credible argument to deny the science fact. What we have is credible data to support the theory of fitness for survival and adaptation over time. Immense time scales only add to support the theory.
Even if one or more gods (and all the asserted gods share the same credibility as your gods) provided the first spark of life, an absent, uninvolved and disinterested god(s) is/are synonymous with "nonexistence". What slather nonexistence with a host of human attributes ?
Here's a proof for you believers. It's a spin off of Kalam's Cosmological Argument, but one that actually makes sense.
1.Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God has no cause.
3. God does not exist.
This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
God has always existed.
God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an eternal universe. Einstein believed the universe had always existed and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
"God has no cause" is synonymous with "God has always existed" since it follows logically. God's location is of no importance or mentioned in this proof and does nothing to testify against its validity.
Who cares what Einstein believed (he did not believe in a personal god, btw) UR: I know this and it only bolsters to support my argument of his "scientific" claim, aside from what could be demonstrated (E=MC2 is demonstrable and can be shown when looking at nuclear blasts, as well as his predictions of black holes being proven to exist). You are using an argument from Authority, and again, is a logical fallacy. Besides, his beliefs were in lockstep with many people of that time because they lacked any evidence or models that would lead them to believe otherwise. So again, you're post is moot.
I totally agree with you man, i also remember aother famous Quote of Epicurus
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
You guys aren't the first to grapple with these theological arguments, and you won't be the last. God allows evil because he created us as free agents. The necessary construct of the TOE is you do not have Free Will. Even now, you don't really have a choice to respond to me. You are just an organism reacting to stimuli, with the response already programmed into your genetic makeup. For you, free will is just an illusion.
[url=http://evolutionaryphilosophy.com/2009/04/20/conscious-evolution-and-freewill/]Conscious Evolution and Free Will? « Evolutionary Philosophy[/URL]
Evolutionary philosophy?!?!? What the freak? Hollie, I thought evolution was just science and nothing more.
You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
This is fallacy that doesn't take into account two very important things:
God has always existed.
God exists outside of matter, space, time, and energy.
Before you get your panties in a wad, Einstein missed the evidence pointing to the big bang because he believed in an eternal universe. Einstein believed the universe had always existed and had no beginning. So the concept that something has no beginning is not foreign to science.
"God has no cause" is synonymous with "God has always existed" since it follows logically. God's location is of no importance or mentioned in this proof and does nothing to testify against its validity.
Who cares what Einstein believed (he did not believe in a personal god, btw) UR: I know this and it only bolsters to support my argument of his "scientific" claim, aside from what could be demonstrated (E=MC2 is demonstrable and can be shown when looking at nuclear blasts, as well as his predictions of black holes being proven to exist). You are using an argument from Authority, and again, is a logical fallacy. Besides, his beliefs were in lockstep with many people of that time because they lacked any evidence or models that would lead them to believe otherwise. So again, you're post is moot.
You show your lack of understanding in the argument I was making and have incorrectly attempted to dismiss it with the wrong fallacy. I wasn't arguing on the credibility of Einstein. My point was that Einstein, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time, missed the "scientific" evidence that would allowed him to discover the big bang. Your assertion that he lacked evidence is a lie or gross misrepresentation. All of his measurements pointed to the Universe having a beginning, but since he did not believe in God, his prejudice would not allow him to accept the fact the universe had a beginning. You see if the universe had a beginning, then it would have to have a cause. If it has always existed, there is no necessity for the causal relationship. Therefore, your logic has again suffered an epic fail. The causal necessity is not applicable if the result in question is not a result, since it has always been.
What part of the theory of evolution requires a lack of free will?
I read your link, it did not say evolution requires a lack of free will.
Also, to flip things around, if there is a god, and god knows everything that ever has or ever will occur, there is no free will.
You guys aren't the first to grapple with these theological arguments, and you won't be the last. God allows evil because he created us as free agents. The necessary construct of the TOE is you do not have Free Will. Even now, you don't really have a choice to respond to me. You are just an organism reacting to stimuli, with the response already programmed into your genetic makeup. For you, free will is just an illusion.
[url=http://evolutionaryphilosophy.com/2009/04/20/conscious-evolution-and-freewill/]Conscious Evolution and Free Will? « Evolutionary Philosophy[/URL]
Evolutionary philosophy?!?!? What the freak? Hollie, I thought evolution was just science and nothing more.
You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
"God has no cause" is synonymous with "God has always existed" since it follows logically. God's location is of no importance or mentioned in this proof and does nothing to testify against its validity.
Who cares what Einstein believed (he did not believe in a personal god, btw) UR: I know this and it only bolsters to support my argument of his "scientific" claim, aside from what could be demonstrated (E=MC2 is demonstrable and can be shown when looking at nuclear blasts, as well as his predictions of black holes being proven to exist). You are using an argument from Authority, and again, is a logical fallacy. Besides, his beliefs were in lockstep with many people of that time because they lacked any evidence or models that would lead them to believe otherwise. So again, you're post is moot.
You show your lack of understanding in the argument I was making and have incorrectly attempted to dismiss it with the wrong fallacy. I wasn't arguing on the credibility of Einstein. My point was that Einstein, arguably one of the greatest scientist of all time, missed the "scientific" evidence that would allowed him to discover the big bang. Your assertion that he lacked evidence is a lie or gross misrepresentation. All of his measurements pointed to the Universe having a beginning, but since he did not believe in God, his prejudice would not allow him to accept the fact the universe had a beginning. You see if the universe had a beginning, then it would have to have a cause. If it has always existed, there is no necessity for the causal relationship. Therefore, your logic has again suffered an epic fail. The causal necessity is not applicable if the result in question is not a result, since it has always been.
You are asserting the universe has always existed. You have zero evidence. There is evidence of the big bang, such as backround microwave radiation from the big bang itself. this is where everything you say falls apart- the fact that the big bang is supported by evidence, and predictions from the model are accurate to what we see today- the universe is continually expanding. Everything we see in the universe follows logically from a model put forth from the big bang happening. You have zero evidence for any of your claims, and they rest purely on an attempt to prove your presupposition that the bible is accurate and true, which can not ever be demonstrated and is not supported by evidence.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1msS71xL00&feature=related]Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube[/ame]You should do not believe liberals!
Flash Darwin, Marx and other leftists "scientists" down the toilet.
Proof the earth was created 6,000 years ago in 6 days of 24 hours
Earth is 6,000 Years Old - YouTube
Well that was ( choke chuckle) informative.
You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings. I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)
You're little explanation of using free will is completely insufficient to explain the presence of evil, IF your god is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Inherent contradictions necessarily exist if he knows the future, is all powerful, yet can not stop the world from evil or can not get rid of his own creation, the devil, if you believe in that. He would have known adam was going to fall from grace, and all of the evil that was to fall, yet let it happen anyway, then created a loophole for his inability to do anything about, by bringing down his own son, and demanding only belief in him, without any respect to conduct towards others. The whole idea of christianity sets up a morally bankrupt ideology that tricks people into believing they are evil (original sin) and offering the antidote (Jesus). Only someone raised in this situation or so desperate to be saved from themselves (addicts) could possibly use this belief structure and not see it for what it is: manipulative.
So it obvious you reject the claim that man is born sinful. That leaves you with a humanistic viewpoint that man is good. So how do you account for evil in the world? How do fathers on meth pour gas on their 4-year-old daughters and burn them alive in the desert? How does a man abuct other men, rape and kill them, and then keep their body parts in his fridge? Because they are essentially good, right?
Sadly, you appear to be the product of the last 50 years of lib education in this country. Next thing I know you will be quoting Maslow. It doesn't surprise me, as would not your next post modernistic arguments seeded with moral relativism. Without absolute truth, anything goes. First gay marriage, and then child molestation in some instances.
Here's Wil Provine, materialist fundamentalist evolutionist priest, discussing free will, with some Hollie hate for Christians thrown in for good measure. His comments are so transparent it is obvious he was raised Christian and is now gay.
On Postmodernism and Relativism - The Truth Project
your logic is one big argument from ignorance, once again, this time applied to morality instead of evolution or creation. You can't account for morality without god, so you assert God to make it true. I don't pretend to know what morality is for certain, nor did I say humans are 'good' so I don't appreciate your sarcastic ramblings. I suspect that morality is an emergent property of being conscious beings with the ability to recollect the past and anticipate the future, while being aware of other beings who have that same capacity and with whom we must share space on this earth for the duration of our consciousness. Therefore, it is in our own best interest to behave in a way that doesn't return to us harm, but instead brings up good things. Moral behavior, therefore, can be reduced to individual pyschologies and incentives that are seen with respect to behavior. In other words, programming from childhood and upbringing, and continually fine-tuned throughout our adult life. For example, if a person already hates themselves, there is no incentive to engage in 'good' behavior, because any good behavior that is brought about in return will not be perceived as indicative of his/her character, but as foreign to their self-image. Therefore, their patterns of behavior will follow a line of self-destruction as a result of their thought patterns, which come from the past. Hence, the reason for the existence of psychotherapy. The golden rule is a good template. Consequentialism is another way to look at it. But, simply asserting God solves nothing, considering that god an immoral asshole who advocates slavery and murder as evidenced in the old testament. (If you attempt to claim the superiority of the new testament, you violate the definition of god as being all-knowing, all-powerful, and never-changing)
