The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

All you have done is given god a free pass.
Why?

Why does god get a free pass?
I mean, other than you really really really really want god to exist?

Giving God a free pass? lol. Ok

 

[SkepticThinker]

If God knew that this was the only way that the girl would become saved, then who can argue with it? See, the problem of evil appeals to the emotions, which is actually a fallacy. Notice that you disregarded the whole scenario and focused primarily on the molestation.

And that is the point; God knows what would be the best scenario to put people in to get them to know him. The problem is, some people don't want to get to know him, so no situation is "right" for everyone.

And trust me, there is nothing that we can go through on this earth without God that will even come close to what we will go through if we continue to live in our sins without him.

And like I said:

In order for you to disprove of any action or non-action by God, you are basing your critisism on a presupposed moral standard, that is at best...subjective.

If your god's main objective was to save the girl, there are many, many, many, many other ways "he" could do it. Like simply presenting himself to her and saving her the torture and indignity of being molested.

Unless "he's" a sicko, of course.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Notice that the rain is something that I can observe. Reptiles to birds and macroevolution is something I don't observe.

You could if you were at all interested in learning anything.

 

[Runewolf1973]

You could if you were at all interested in learning anything.

I think he's only interested in his own delusions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think he's only interested in his own delusions.

Sad, but apparently true.
I've never encountered anyone so closed off to learning new things. It's hard to believe, actually.

 

[fantome profane]

Notice that the rain is something that I can observe. Reptiles to birds and macroevolution is something I don't observe.

I think you would blind yourself to the rain if you thought that was theologically required.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If your god's main objective was to save the girl, there are many, many, many, many other ways "he" could do it. Like simply presenting himself to her and saving her the torture and indignity of being molested.

Unless "he's" a sicko, of course.

First off, presenting himself to her wouldn't necessarily work. In Christianity, Satan and all of the demons that followed him knew God, and they STILL choose a path of darkness despite this.

Second, in the scenario I said if God KNEW IT WAS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE WOMAN WOULD BE SAVED WAS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN TO HER. If that was the only way, then there are no other ways. See, that is the problem, you are going by what you "think" he could of done, and I am presenting a scenario at which an all-knowing God knows what would be the best and certain unpleasantries may be necessary if it is for the greater good.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Sad, but apparently true.
I've never encountered anyone so closed off to learning new things. It's hard to believe, actually.

Reptiles to birds? That is something new. Something that no one has ever seen. I would say that is quite new.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First off, presenting himself to her wouldn't necessarily work. In Christianity, Satan and all of the demons that followed him knew God, and they STILL choose a path of darkness despite this.

Second, in the scenario I said if God KNEW IT WAS THE ONLY WAY THAT THE WOMAN WOULD BE SAVED WAS FOR THIS TO HAPPEN TO HER. If that was the only way, then there are no other ways. See, that is the problem, you are going by what you "think" he could of done, and I am presenting a scenario at which an all-knowing God knows what would be the best and certain unpleasantries may be necessary if it is for the greater good.

Allowing her to be molested wouldn't necessarily work either. In fact, it could easily turn her away from god.

It will certainly destroy her mentally, for the rest of her life. Take that from a person who was molested as a child.

I'm going on your description of your god being capable of doing just about anything. YOU'RE going by what you think god could have done just as much as I am. Except that YOU'RE claiming that its moral for your god to allow a young girl to be molested in order to find "him." And that the only way this poor girl could possibly find god is by being violated in the worst possible way. And THAT is one of my main problems with religious belief. Look at the horrors you are willing to justify to defend your god.

Unpleasantries? Are you kidding me?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Reptiles to birds? That is something new. Something that no one has ever seen. I would say that is quite new.

Open your eyes.

 

[shawn001]

Reptiles to birds? That is something new. Something that no one has ever seen. I would say that is quite new.

It isn't new. Or is all of the science of it new such as fossils. Creating a "dinosaur" from a chicken by 'turning" on and "off" ancient genes using DNA is relatively new.


Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken | Video on TED.com

There were also five mass extinctions events on Earth, the dinosaurs were one of them, but there was a bigger one before that and ones before that even. Then ones after the dinosaurs. Even know its believed.

There have been more then one species of humans living on earth AT THE SAME TIME. A lot of people have

Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves

Neanderthals, Humans Interbred, DNA Proves : Discovery News



New

Here's What Happened When Neanderthals And Ancient Humans Hooked Up 80,000 Years Ago

Neanderthal DNA And Modern Humans - Business Insider

 

[Enai de a lukal]

To be omniscience is to know all true propositions (all knowing), right. Now, if it is a FACT that being X has the necessary attribute of omniscience, then I can't think of a possible world...

...IN WHICH X EXISTS...

... at which being X doesn't know a given proposition.

X is omniscient if and only if X knows every possibly proposition IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD IN WHICH X EXISTS. If X does not exist in a possible world P, then it does not contradict X's omniscience to not know every proposition in P, since X does not exist in P.

This is just basic modal logic. If attribute A is part of the definition of X, that is, if A is necessarily true of X, then X has attribute A in every possible world in which X exists, but not in possible worlds in which X does NOT exist. Clearly something cannot have an attribute if that something doesn't even exist.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Open your eyes.

Well, I know Jesus was said to heal the blind, but I think even Jesus knew you can't fix stupid. Lol.

 

[Simurgh]

Well, in this case I postulate the necessary truth that evolution is a lie and it isn't science. There you go, now you have the facts.

I guess you just don't get it ever. teleological reasoning at its best. well, it does give you something to do during the winter storms.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, I know Jesus was said to heal the blind, but I think even Jesus knew you can't fix stupid. Lol.

Hehe

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

X is omniscient if and only if X knows every possibly proposition IN EVERY POSSIBLE WORLD IN WHICH X EXISTS. If X does not exist in a possible world P, then it does not contradict X's omniscience to not know every proposition in P, since X does not exist in P.


This is just basic modal logic. If attribute A is part of the definition of X, that is, if A is necessarily true of X, then X has attribute A in every possible world in which X exists, but not in possible worlds in which X does NOT exist. Clearly something cannot have an attribute if that something doesn't even exist.

Nothing you said is a defeater of the argument. If it is possible for God to exist as defined in the argument, then God exists. It is just as simple as that. So far you haven't been able to demonstrate the impossibility of the concept. So it stands.

 

[shawn001]

Nothing you said is a defeater of the argument. If it is possible for God to exist as defined in the argument, then God exists. It is just as simple as that. So far you haven't been able to demonstrate the impossibility of the concept. So it stands.

So then here you admit some sort of God is just a concept?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

When you claim there is no first cause, then infinite regression is the default position. Or didn't you know that, smart guy?

Actually the default position is "I don't know".

The concept of a MGB is logically sound/valid. Any anything that does not defy logic and reason is possible.

Except it snot. It hinges on several things that we don't know to be true. For example there is no "chance" god exists. Either he does or he doesn't. The idea of probability is illogical in this scenario. So you are incorrect in stating that it is devoid of flaws or even remotely sound as a logical deduction.

For example what about another god placed in the exact same procession of arguments. I can think of one right now that would follow the exact same line of arguments and that would mean that it also exists. Would you agree?

Explain to me how the concept of a MGB defies logic and reason. If you can't, then admit that it is possible for God to exist.

Already did. And you haven't provided the possibility of god existing.

It is possible for God to be inside a box, if that is the way he chooses to manifest himself.

But according to your logic he must always be in that box. I checked and he wasn't there. So I just proved without a shadow of a doubt your logic if faulty.

So your brain is sad?? Ok, so if how you feel is solely determined by chemical reactions in your brain, then how do you have free will? If you commit a crime, you committed this action based on the chemicals in your brain...so how are you responsible for your actions?

The debate on free will is still up in the air right now so that isn't even a given. Why does the fact that our sentience is based upon chemical reactions rather than a soul have any difference on how we judge criminals?

I will ask again, if you woke up and found yourself in the body of your dog, but your human body remained in the bed...who are you? Are you the dog, or are you the body in the bed?

You must provide that it is possible otherwise we are arguing about the weight of imaginary numbers in a streetcare named desire running along the train of thought.

A counter question that makes more sense would be "what if you were in a world where there was no god? And it was just like this one but no god?"

You are right, "as far as we know"...and we "know" very little. Now you can sit there and tell me how impossible it is and not answer the question...fine...but that would only would lead me to believe that you won't answer because regardless of what answer you give, it won't help your position, so its better to play it safe by denying the impossibility altogether.

Actually it means your scenario is useless in determining anything. "how" they were switched would be a big question. "why" the thought they were switched. Is it just memories? Consciousness? ect ect ect. Its far to vague. Come back with a question that has meaning.

Sorry, but saying "we don't know" just won't cut it. We do know that either the universe had a beginning, or it didn't have a beginning, and to negate one is to grant the other. But I won't get in to all of that. Not worth it.

Actually we don't. You can try to force an answer out of something and eventually come up with a made up answer and pretend its true but it doesn't make it correct.

I mean next time you take a test and you don't know the answer just make one up and see if its correct.

Sometimes, it just isn't worth it.

It really isn't. I mean I argue it with you 100 times and you simply aren't going to listen to reason, logic, evidence or anything else. You are simply here to babble ******** and try to force it on others and get upset when other tell you how full of crap you are. So ...why are you here?

A universe that isn't fine tuned would be one at which there would be no intelligent human beings to say "explain an example of a universe that is not fine tuned".

Why?

Give me reasons to conclude that there are other universes outside of our own and I will consider it.

give me reasons to conclude the Christian god is the one true god.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Nothing you said is a defeater of the argument. If it is possible for God to exist as defined in the argument, then God exists. It is just as simple as that. So far you haven't been able to demonstrate the impossibility of the concept. So it stands.

I've actually shown precisely that, although you're either unable to understand, or unwilling to admit it since you're committed to conclusion of the argument come what may.

On the other hand, it isn't like I have to lean on that one particular fatal objection; as I've pointed out, the MOA is not valid in any system of modal logic which does not include S5, so any defense of the MOA must include a justification or argument for S5. Not only have you never done so, we both know you lack the technical expertise in logic to even to begin such an endeavor. Worse, we can ignore that as well, and just point out that the argument is question-begging. It carries as much force as the following argument-

If God does not exist then God does not exist.
God does not exist.
Therefore God does not exist.

A valid question-begging argument proves nothing; the MOA is unsound, invalid in most modal systems, and begs the crucial question. As I said, there really isn't a way for an argument to fail that the MOA doesn't have covered (a dubious distinction, to be sure).

 

[McBell]

If God knew that this was the only way that the girl would become saved, then who can argue with it? See, the problem of evil appeals to the emotions, which is actually a fallacy. Notice that you disregarded the whole scenario and focused primarily on the molestation.

And that is the point; God knows what would be the best scenario to put people in to get them to know him. The problem is, some people don't want to get to know him, so no situation is "right" for everyone.

And trust me, there is nothing that we can go through on this earth without God that will even come close to what we will go through if we continue to live in our sins without him.

to be quite frank about it, I do not trust you.

And like I said:

In order for you to disprove of any action or non-action by God, you are basing your critisism on a presupposed moral standard, that is at best...subjective.

Bull ****.
This is nothing more than you setting up a "safety net" for your chosen deity.

I for one am not buying into it.