For the Creationists

Sarkus
“

and steering committees don't pass resolutions that are singular in desire?
like for instance if a steering committee is determining whether they will manufacture pencil sharpeners red or green, will they resolve this issue singularly?

then perhaps you can explain how an entity can exist in the absence of time and space without being omnipresent - good luck

you say the topic is irrelevant to the discussion, but you brought up the topic
:shrug:

you might want to test the sharpness of that razor of yours if you want to start talking about the psychological being material - particularly since there is no material foundation for the comprehension of the substance of the psychological (sure there are behavioral observations however)

I assumed you were not in the mood for discussing the subject, since, despite dressing your response up with your beloved razor, it boiled down to "I don't think so"

well if we are talking about the odds of a coin landing heads, we have in fact seen and observed coins landing on heads, but if you want to skirt the subject, fine, it wouldn't be the first time

ditto

if you can't distinguish between your opinions and logic, its better people learn somewhere else

as a champion of the cause of logic, what else could perfect knowledge be if not perfect in all circumstances (if it wasn't, wouldn't it be imperfect knowledge?)

sure I have
begin the practice of giving up sin and control your own mind and senses

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, they don't, why do you atheists enjoy lieing to yourselves for? Most theistic claims that there's no evidence for have no evidence because it is impossible to gather evidence for them...thats why there's no evidence......just as with the many-worlds interpretation or the superstring theory...its just untestable...unverifiable...

Easy, all you have to do is show the RNA and genetic information system arising naturally...biologists have all the resources in labs....I wonder why they've been trying for over 50 years and still can't produce it? I wonder why they can't show the so-called self-replicating polymers turning into bacteria?

No, I used the regular dictionary for my definition, it really depends which definition you use...:

de·lu·sion /dɪˈluʒən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-loo-zhuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

But, let's say we decide to use your atheistic definition, what evidence in the contrary do you have? Nothing, nothing at all.......except for "Well I don't believe in Santa Claus, FSM, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn"

There is evidence for design, consciousness, etc.....as for the rest the reason there's no evidence is because it is IMPOSSIBLE to gather evidence for things like heaven and hell, God, karma, etc...tell me how can I gather evidence for this?

Atheism is ENTIRELY based off the argument from ignorance, which is "if there's no evidence, it must be false":
"An adage regarding this fallacy from the philosophy of science is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence": Not having evidence for something is not proof that something is not or cannot be true. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Thus we can conclude that atheists are ignorant fools, since they always use arguments from pure, untouched ignorance...

Regardless of if they'd be right to question, they'd ultimately be wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, because the truth is the truth with or WITHOUT evidence...atheists can careless about what the actual truth is, they only care about what the current evidence shows (bunch of ignorants)

Actually, I'm not the one who fails to realize this, you're the one who fails to realize this. If you did then you wouldn't constantly use the argument from ignorance....

The foolish atheist thinks that whatever the current evidence shows is the absolute truth, and thus rejects anything without evidence at the current time, those deluded fools...when will they care about the actual, absolute truth and stop caring about what only appears to be the truth...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Clearly you have no concept of time. 50 years is nothing, not even an atom in the drop in a bucket of water as compared to billions of years.

Since we are on a scientific forum, let's use the psychiatric definition shall we?

The default position is - as was said before - that there is no god, no Santa, no FSM, no invisible pink unicorn without reasonable evidence. You're arguing from a forgone conclusion that has no basis in reality other than your own perception.

You can't. Therefore you should not be preaching to anyone that god, heaven, hell etc exists as a forgone conclusion.

Consciousness btw is self evident, we've been thru that.

Whether this is true or not (and I'm not going into this here at all, it's been done to death)...it doesn't mean that your beliefs hold any water at all.

Still doesn't give you the right to pose your beliefs on anyone without evidence. It also doesn't give you the right to become upset when people correctly rebuke you. Your perception and theisms have little bearing on the rest of the planet.

Provide evidence, and you'll get an audience. Black holes are provable, god - thus far - is not. On top of which, worship of such a being if it exists is a totally different question.

Which atheist or agnostic ever said absolutely that no god exists? With proper evidence I'd be quite willing to entertain the theory of a god.

Like you said, if such a being truly exists, my belief is irrelevant. However, neither this being nor you (et al.) have revealed any convincing evidence. Therefore, it is illogical to leap to the conclusion that any god exists. Did people with no knowledge of black holes suddenly wake up and say "oh my, i believe large, gravitationally inescapable holes exist around my planet. I shall preach of them and kneel before their power"? No, evidence must be first presented; and of course it is considered ludicrous to worship black holes, now that we know what they are!

Your fixed belief must be classed as a delusion since you are resistant to reason and you have not confronted any of the facts that science have put before you. You consistently harp on logical arguments that have been used against you, cleverly switching a few words to appear the valid opponent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

VitalOne, when will you stop and actually try to learn something, rather than beating the same horse you have tried in any number of threads.
Your position has been shown to be solely against STRONG atheists - i.e. those atheists who have a positive belief in the non-existence of God.
Further, your argument is confused and poorly thought out - you claim these strong-atheists are arguing from ignorance and yet you do exactly the same thing with regard to the apparent ongoing experiments for abiogenesis (e.g. "They can't do it therefore God did it!").

Stop bringing up this tired argument unless you can argue it through rationally and with a sound argument to support your case.
Your argument grows tiresome but for some reasons seems to be about the only thing you feel you can argue about? Why is that?

 

This entire thing is ad hominem (go look that one up too), except for a few points...

Saying there was an intelligent cause instead of abiogenesis isn't an argument from ignorance, its argument based upon empirical observation and a logical conclusion, no undirected naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause...using your logic if someone concluded that a computer was intelligently designed but had no evidence humans built it or that it formed naturally, they are using an argument from ignorance...hahahahaha

The only reason my arguments grow tiresome is because atheists can't address it...its all true...the entire atheistic argument is based off "since there's no evidence God exists, God doesn't exist (even though its impossible to gather evidence that God exists)" ahahaha, these atheists try anything...

 

My disbelief of God stems from a lack of evidence, not from evidence pointing towards his nonexistence. Thus, if real evidence ever turns up, I'd be on your side of the camp in a second.

But regardless, how does the opposite of that statement, "Since there's no evidence God exists, God does exist" make any sense to you?

 

This is a re-confirmation that atheism is really based off the argument from ignorance....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

This isn't what theists say, theists simply say they believe in God, and they have faith God exists, etc....atheists say things like "atheism requires no faith" (a delusional lie) and "atheism is rational" (another delusional lie), "everyone's born an atheist", and other delusional atheistic propaganda

Theists simply say they believe there is more than this, what we currently know, atheists say there is no more than this, what we currently know, there is just nature and causeless chance, meaningless chemical reactions that cause emotions and feelings, etc...

 

And you said that with a straight face???

Let's look at your claim...

1. Please provide evidence of "no undirected natural cause"
2. Please provide evidence of "design features".

You earlier claim that this so-called argument is based on "empirical observation". Please detail this observation.

So while the logic might be ok in this instance, it is based on flawed/unproven assumptions - and thus to "believe" the outcome as truth is irrational.

Logical fallacy - Strawman - I suggest you look this up.

My logic is not as you claim - nor has it ever been.

My claim is that you're spouting unsubstantiated drivel - aimed specifically at strong atheists.
Further - that you are guilty of the very same thing that you accuse the atheists of.

It's because, to put it bluntly, you continually demonstrate (deliberately or otherwise) an irritating level of ignorance and unwillingness to read and understand what other people say. You continually use strawmen fallacies, you continually fail to back up any claim you make with evidence, and you continually post the same flawed comments again and again and again, despite what other people explain to you.

ANY other person, demonstrating any level of reasonableness and rationality, would have moved on by now, knowing that they have been shown to be spouting drivel.

It is just a pity that you can't see that.

For the last time - NO IT ISN'T!!!

The entire atheist argument is "I have no reason to have a positive belief in the existence of God".
And for the last time - most atheists do NOT have a positive belief in the non-existence of God.

If you continue to claim that they do then you are doing nothing but confirming your inexcusably poor grasp of logic and rationality.

 

You might be intrested to know that just as Microsoft and government have administrations so does God.

Eph. 1:10 Speaks of the Adminstration that God has put into place. As we know and administration's purpose is to provide a command structure and the appropriate delegation of task. Unlike an Earthly administration's God's adminstration will always be one and united.

Well Dawg my knowledge is as I have learned. The same I'm sure is true of yourself. I've been a Christian all my life. I've looked up at the stars and have been awe-struck by their precision since my first eclipse. Every since I've been an unofficial astronomer. I've studied the constellations and the power that maintains the sun.

Obsesively I've engaged in theory of all sorts. Studing the past of science recently became a huge intrest to me. Facinated by early sciences contributions to the Earth I often wondered why the discoveries of today pale in comparision to Newton, Einstein, Copernicus and many others. I discovered that these men were God fearing individuals. They made assuptions about the universe, about our world based on their biblical views.

Science endeavors to answer how but by it's very nature it can never answer why. It can never answer why. Not because of arrogant presumption of it's members but because it's a question science is ill equiped to answer. Why, is a one word question for reason, Scince is the one word answer for How things work.

There ends are different but they are connected.
Everything I've seen and experienced exudes the presence of a creator. Not everything happens for a reason but a series of impossible happy coincidence is not something I'd ever believe in.

Men of Science have tried hard. However the bible has always proved 100% reliable. The existence of an all power creator in the presence of so much evidence is far more likely than the luck that would be necessary to explain the improbability of life from lifelessness.

Even when your scientist fail right before your eyes, you still have unwavering devotion. Now, that's faith. And faith in a men to lead you...that's a cult. A cult of science.

 

Self serving justification. There is no requirement for any sort of omnipotence to require an administration other than laziness.

 

Negative. Order begets order. The order isn't just implied it's a requirement.

 

- Well then, why does any orderly CEO fire people?
- Who said anything about being orderly? I said that an omnipotence does not require any (support) administration. For such a thing to happen, that entity would be less than omnipotent.

 

Argument from ignorance: The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true.

Sound familiar?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

By being a theist, you inherently agree with that statement. There is no evidence for God, God does exist. You yourself mentioned that no evidence can be found, and yet you still believe in God.

 

Hmm....seems like you intentionally missed this part "or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true"

sound familiar???

Besides most theists don't claim they believe because there's no evidence God doesn't exist, they say they have faith, belief, personal experiences, etc...atheists on the other hand (like Richard Dawkins) exclusively state the reason they don't believe in God is because there is no evidence...thereby matching the EXACT, precise definition of the argument from ignorance......

No, being a theist I agree with the statement "if there is no evidence for nor against something then it exists as a distinct possibility"...theists say they believe because of their own rationality, experiences, etc...

Being an atheist you agree with the statement "If there's no evidence God exists, then God doesn't exist" (an argument from ignorance)

The reason this doesn't work is because it doesn't make sense...take for instance in ancient times there was no evidence that blackholes existed...that didn't indicate non-existence, it only indicated there was NO EVIDENCE, not even the slighest, smallest, most infinitesmal amount of evidence indicating blackholes existed....still with or WITHOUT evidence the truth is the truth...something atheists can't seem to grasp...

Also unverifiability != false, if the many-worlds interpretation can't be tested, or evidence can't be gathered for it, it doesn't indicate that it isn't true....this is obvious to everyone EXCEPT for the atheist...

 

Heh, of course I didn't miss it. I was merely pointing out the fact that in this case, you and I are two sides of the same coin.

Sure, that's all fine and dandy, but tell a theist that God doesn't exist and what'll he/she/it say? Prove it.

Too bad that's not what I agree with. In fact, I happen to agree with your statement 100% sans one word: If there is no evidence for nor against something, then it exists as a possibility. I have never ever ever said that "God does not exist and I know that for a fact".

 

Correct.

NO!!

HOW MANY TIMES do people have to tell you before you'll listen?????!!!

You are assuming ATHEISM = I BELIEVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST

IT DOESN'T!!!

I am an atheist - and I DO NOT say that.

Would you like me to start making up false beliefs that you have?
"Hey - you're a theist - so you believe that women should be chained to the kitchen-sink!"

 

To maintain Order of course.

Yes, that is what you said. Omnipotence doesn't require anything. Yet two or more like minds require organization. We are many minds...that's what religion is...organization.

 

I think that persons who indulge themselves in willfull ignorance fully merit every ad hominem directed towards them. Have the courtesy to use the brain that God gave you and you might find you get more tolerant responses.

 

No Saquist, I didn't specifically say "god requires a support structure". This whole analogy started when you said logic requires that a design begets a single designer. This is where is spiralled into design committees etc, and thusly arriving at this contrived point. We were simply pointing out that a design does not necessarily originate from one designer. Project Manager, Company, CEO notwithstanding, there can be multiple participants, any one of whose absence would result in a failed design. Simply as a counterpoint to your own assumption of a single designer...if we accepted that the universe required a designer at all.

PS If god is omnipotent and requires nothing, why would he require your constant worship and praise?

 

And why would he want the worship and praise of a turkey?