You miss the point. The question is not essentially about which religion is the true one. The question is related to the ability or the method that can or should be used to find the truth. We are talking about verification, falsification, reason and logic.
I see no reason why one would have to...
Well, i have written one myself some 8 years ago.
But i must admit that it gets pretty bad as i go through the chapters. Its hard to keep an objective tone when reading so much crap.
At around 2000 i wrote some texts about theories concerning the origin of life (includung theistic evolution and...
As I said before.. a truth doesn't evolve.
If for example the shape of the earth is like this and that then you do not need to "reinterpret" a religious text that tells you so. You obviously need to reinterpret one that doesn't.
All false texts would state the wrong shape.
How would you differ...
No actually i am not.
But I do think that descriptions of the physical world should be accurate. And descriptions that are not ones of the physical world should be clearly visible as such.
Else you would run into the problem of not being able to discern the false revelations from the true ones...
I think this is the important point.
Perhaps you would reread this paragraph and think about the possible implications. Then you might understand the problem many have with that explanation of yours.
The facts also say that you can create new species and that new species have evolved from older ones.
As for the last sentence of yours, i would disagree.
If it doesn't matter what the result looks like since you will interpret simply in a way that fits the truth then this would not really...
The cathloic church is quite obsessed with sex.
Its like an obsession with food. You can have too much or not enough food. But actually the only ones obsessed with food are the anorexic or the pathological obese, not the normal person.
Same goes for sex and the catholic church.
Because it is not so!
You see if you are a theist and believe in a scripture that tells you that atheists are fools or evil then you can't discard that. You won't.
And if you are an atheist and see what believers do to you or how they try to impose their religion on others (including you) then...
What makes you think that the place of the earth within the universe is not an evolving topic? Actually the whole universe with its form, shape, age, behaviour etc. is an evolving topic for science.
Just some points:
-"According to aristotle" is the beginning of an argument of authority.
-What you do now is a variation of the cosmological argument instead of the ontological one.
I could reply in the same way I also replied to your last argument. It has been refuted centuries ago already...
Deontology:
First of all let me differ a bit concerning the terms you used. ( i am not American so perhaps the definitions are a bit different)
Deontological for me means indeed rule based. You judge by the rule and not by intentions or consequences. Deontology is different from...
Hello Dunemeister,
good post. I rearranged the topics a bit (most important first)
You made some definitions. It is seldom that someone takes the time to define the words he uses so well. And i want to explicitly thank you for that!
It spares us from wasting much time debating something...
There is to my knowledge not a single biologist who holds any other valid theory.
That is not to say that everybody "promotes" evolution.
Says who ?
You are a funny guy.
Indeed evidence points to evolution. There has not been one single interpretation of the data that was consistent and...
Three points:
a) First of all a proof is not a matter of personal interpretation.
b) The ontological argument is not conclusive. I do not want to spend too much time with it as it has been refuted for centuries already. The mere fact that you use it is very telling.
c) Even if you had prooven a...