No, it isn't. It's leaping to conclusions. You're going from a natural case of things being created and designed and attributing it to an unknown supernatural being that has all these amazing attributes that come from a single book over two thousand years old. This is an example of Mythos thinking, not Logos. Mythos says "We can't explain it, therefore we must conjure up some supernatural explanation for it.". Logos says "We can't explain it, therefore we will try to discover its nature according to and within nature. We will NOT proclaim that some supernatural being creates or maintains natural phenominon without sufficient proof."
Creation itself isn't proof of God. It's not. Just because things are complex and irreducibly so doesn't mean that they are created by an intelligent designer. Look at any major city: such places work like evolution. They develop as the need arises, and the parts come together to form an entity that, without any one part, wouldn't function the same or perhaps not at all. But could we be fooled into thinking that one intelligent supernatural designer made New York City? No way.
Take a logics and reasoning class. You do not ask the opposition to prove a negative. If you are asserting that God exists, you must prove up. Asking another party to prove a negative is a poor debating fallacy.
What the ****, no, it proves that things can develop over time and accomplish things by themselves. Meaning evolution is true. Yoou need to read a text book for ****'s sake. Don't you understand that this "God" thing was made up to try and avoid questions. That was the plan and there was just one problem,
It was bollucks.
Why, if there's no knowledge in it, and great big holes in the theory, no facts, no evidence, no truth, it's just made up, then ofcource it doesn't exist. Moron. Oh, I mean Mormon. Sorry, kinda forgot you can't spell properly.
WTF? Seriously, WTF is that you just said? A made up guy doesn't believe in person who doesn't believe in him? WTF are you talking about? That is truely, the stupidest thing I've ever heard. You are ****ing dumb man. If you actually read 'The origin of Species' you'd know what science is.
You cant teach one thing without teaching the other
FOR EXAMPLE:
You teach WWII to german students, but only teach what was happening from one perspective (aka nazi perspective) they wont know what was really going on, just those damn jews
by teaching everything about the war, they would figure out what was going on
you cant just say ADAM AND EVE (period) you have to teach it all. Legally.
The late Dr. Orr said: What we mean by proof of God's existence is simply that there are necessary acts of thought by which we rise from thr finite to the infinite, from the caused to the uncaused, from the contingent to the necessary, from the reason involved in the structure of the universe to a universal and eternal reason,which is the ground of all. from morality in conscience to a moral Lawgiver and Judge.
Religion existed b4 argument; in fact it is the preciousness of religion that leads to the seeking for all possible confirmations of the reality of God.
Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
They develop as the need arises, you say. Who develop it? Chemical reactions? Natural Selection? That's the case the government of that state has to wait for millions of year for a building to be build. I did not say one intelligent supernatural designer made a City. read my post right kid.
Man everywhere believes in existence of a Supreme Being or beings to whom he is morally responsible and to whom propitations need to be made. The likes of you are the minority, asking us to prove the existence of God while you guys are the 1st who say God don't exist. So? Asking another party to prove is a poor debating fallacy. Your debating fallacy.
It is impossible for a finite mind to comprehand a Supreme Being unless with His help alone. Rhetoric nonsense? For a a finite mind, it will be.
And this has all the effect and proof of Tookie William's autobiography. Point?
What a bunch of bullshit. Dictatorships existed "b4" democracy; is a dictatorship suddenly more credible because it's older? Appeal to tradition: logical fallacy.
Nice copy and paste skills there, Slick.
Go read a book on evolution. I'm not going to parrot it for you if you're ignorant to the concept outside of copied definitions and laymen's knowledge.
Can you relate this to something and make it intelligible and relevant? Natural selection is a scientific theory that holds insofar as it is both falsifiable and holds true to evidence and observation.. Go look up the entirety of the scientific method, in case you slept through that in grade school. Creationism and ID don't follow scientific method or any method other than "It's too complex or mysterious; therefore God did it." It's called leaping to conclusions. Logical fallacy.
It's called an analogy, and if you had the reasoning power adequate enough to resolve this debate, you'd notice it's comparison value and relevance.
Real mature from someone who has no legible argument.
Appeal to majority. Logical fallacy.
Just because people all over believe in God does not make it so. If everyone on Manhatten was under the impression that their island was the only island on the east coast, would it be so? No. Belief does not constitute being or proof, even the belief of a majority.
I'm so glad you've been keeping up on my arguments. I've never once said that God doesn't exist. Or "don't exist". I've argued that God cannot fit the Judeo-Christian mindset of all powerful and all good because of the very idea is contradictory in a world with evil. I've argued that Creationism and ID are faulty explanations for the beginnings of things, and that science is more reliable.
And when debating you do not ask the opposition to prove a negative. Why?
"There is a small, intangible, silent, invisible, allpowerful but unintrusive midget standing on my shoulder. Disprove"
That's why. No one can disprove that. It's not falsifiable. And it is likely not even true.
Glad to know you know your stuff there. :moron smilie:
In other words, you're saying we cannot know God. Congrats. You've proven my entire point. We cannot know God, so that stuff in your precious Bible is human arrogance and likely made up by people with an agenda or not even of God at all. This means we cannot conclude that God exists or doesn't exist based on current information and evidence, and we cannot conclude that should God exist, he neccessarily created everything and therefore, evolution doesn't exist. When you have an argument structured, come back please.
I think I know what he means. He is saying that God is true and that everyone is Christian/Jewish/Muslim. He's so stupid, he doesn't understand or even know what religion means. It doesn't mean 'fact'. God doesn't exist, we can explainthings as science. Instead of argueing against science and for religion, why don't you try and learn it for yourself, like SCIENTISTS do.
A watch proves not only a maker, an artificer but also a designer; a watch is amde for a purpose, an evident structure. A thoughtful designing mind was at the back of the watch. So it is in the world that we live in. These "ends" in nature are not attributed to "natural selection" results which are produced without intelligence nor are they "the survival of the fittest". They are the results of a superintending and originating intelligence and will.
The Argument from Being: Ontological
Most Human has an idea of an infinite and perfect Being. From where did they get this idea? From finite and imperfect beings like us? Certainly not? No...this idea argues for the existence of an infinite and perfect Being: such a Being must exist and not a mere thought.
The Moral Argument: Anthropological
Man has an intellectual and a moral nature, therefore there must be a Creator who is intellectual and moral Being, a judge, a Lawgiver.Man has an emotional nature. Only a Being of goodness,power,love,wisdom and holinesscould satisfy such a nature.These things denotes an existence of a personal God.
Conscience of Man says: "do this" and "Don't do that".These things cun be self imposed.They imply of a moral Governer to whom we are responsible.Some things are right...some are wrong. They cannot be right because it pleases and wrong because it displeases.Where did mankind got the standard of right and wrong? Morality is Obligatory, not Optional. Who made it Obligatory? We must believe there is a God or believe the very root of our nature is a lie.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 17th, 2006 04:47 PM
