There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

You want to talk about god or debate god?, when will you start?

You are a fraud.

 

[outhouse]

Will you ignore this common knowledge?


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult.



This states no exodus, no moses, no abraham developping monotheism. It addresses the Canaanite origins of early Israelites.

This also states early Israelites created your one god from two previous deities.

 

[McBell]

You are a fraud.

If this in't the kettle calling the pot black....

 

[Serenity7855]

If this in't the kettle calling the pot black....

You do know that kettles and pots do not actually talk, don't you? Just checking.

 

[outhouse]

You do know that kettles and pots do not actually talk, don't you? Just checking.

The bible was written in a lot of allegory and metaphor

And you simple cannot understand allegory and metaphors???????

 

[TheGunShoj]

Let me say that in retrospect you are partially rights. Where I have put atheist I should have put anti-theist. I tried to change it but you cannot change the OP. I think you will find that the majority of remarks I make are in retaliation to the hostility of the anti-theist, however, nothing I have said equals, or comes anywhere near, the level of abuse that I have received at their figure tips. I, and other Christians like me, are regularly accused of worshipping a Genocidal, psychopathic murderer. That we, as believers, get on our knees and worship a God that kills babies. A God that drowns a planet. Of course they do not believe in those stories, they are Atheists, but they use them to beat Christians with specifically to upset and hurt Christians. That actually describes a psychopathic narcissist. So, I appreciate you concern, however, this is not a level playing field. I am kicking uphill not the atheists.

Oh dear. Another Christian with a persecution complex.

Not in a perfect example, however, when conducting polls and survey there is no such thing as a perfect example. We are all different.

Exactly. Everyone is different. The question was how could you so specifically determine how someone would react to the information you would provide to them like you did in your OP, given that every person is different?

Why do you doubt whether I can be more specific.

I didn't doubt that you could be more specific. I meant I doubt that you can prove that a superior force caused the universe to exist (assuming that by superior force you meant god).

I think it is self explanatory. I have limited knowledge of the cosmos, however, with that knowledge I could place God at the helm of the big bang. It is not hard, you could say it was the Honey Monster, it is a case of the most realistic possibility.

Yes, I could say that any fictional being was at the helm. That's the problem with the model. If you can substitute something else and get the outcome, how is it the most realistic possibility?

Do you think that an elephant caused the big bang? Superior Force should have read superior being. Most people have understood what I was trying to say.

But it didn't read that way. The big bang could certainly be considered a superior force. Force and being are two completely different things.

Beats me, but you all do, in government, entertainment, the media, and science. I need to research it.

More persecution complex. We have a miniscule fraction of the people, money, groups, outreach ect. that you do. But you're the underdog. We have WAY too much leverage.

Well there are those 2.2 billion Christian witnesses. They are pretty convincing.

Argument ad populum fallacy. Just because a certain amount of people believe something adds nothing to the truth of the claim. Otherwise you would believe in big foot, alien abductions and a flat earth.

So, tell me, what evidence do we have on how the universe expanded at a speed faster then the speed of light. What natural explanation is there for dark energy and matter, what natural conditions are found in a black hole. How does abiogenesis work. I can go on but it will only embarrass you.

It won't embarrass me in the slightest. I don't know and I don't have to have all the answers. I'm not a scientist, it's not my job to know things that professional scientists have yet to be able to answer. But just because we don't know now does not mean that we can jump to conclusion. The answer is simply, I don't know.

That anthropic principle is quite a piece of evidence for a designer. The possibility that God caused the big bang is pretty good evidence, as is the rapid expansion. The intellectual divide between us and our closest counterpart in the animal Kingdom offer some evidence. I think you are wrong, as do 2.2 billion other Christians.

More argument ad populum. You need to brush up on your logical fallacies so you will stop making them. Also, the gap is not any proof. I just gave you plenty of examples of how we are INFERIOR to other animals on the planet. Just because we are superior in one specific area, how does that make us overall superior?

Seems like a common belief with atheism that if you do not agree with them then you lack knowledge on the subject. I hear it all the time about evolution, cosmology, virology, biology, and physics from atheists. It seems that only atheists are qualified in these areas.

Not only atheists are qualified. In fact, I would say that most aren't qualified at all. Including my self. I'm no evolutionary biologist but I do have a basic grasp of the concepts and how it works. When you posit that humans evolved faster or are more evolved than other species, that shows a misunderstanding of the basic principles.

I would say that intelligence and reasoning is a pretty good niche to make one far more superior then the animals. Does a Arabian horse ring in your groceries, develop a vaccine, reduce your phone bills and sing like an angel. Common mate, you are not making sense, and why is that? Because you are not debating for knowledge you are looking for anything, regardless as to how small, to make religion wrong and you right. You are not interested in honest opinions you are interested in taking a religion, dissecting it's doctrine, then using the fault you find, or create, to beat the Christian religion with. If you want to know why I am a Christian then I will tell you but don't then call me on every word to stupid me and my faith. That is dishonest.

Hahahaha. I'm not making sense? Out of all the species on the planet, one of them has to be the most intelligent. That happens to be us, that doesn't make us special. Lets stick you in a cage with a hungry lion and see how superior you feel then.

Intelegence causes quite a devide because it enables so many other things. It gives us dominion over the animals. If we all evolved equally then why isn't the attendant at the garage a penguin.

Because penguins don't have the advanced cognitive function that we do. Again, you are showing a glaringly obvious lack of understanding of how evolution works. Lets stick you, naked, into the arctic with penguins and see how long you last. Penguins have their own niche and are "superior" to us in many ways. I don't know why you can't understand this.

No, the "by chance" hypothesis" is not impossible but it is improbable, by a factor so large that it would fill the page. The chances that we are a life permitting planet are astronomically large verging on the impossible.

I don't know where you came up with that. Considering that this is a life permitting planet...you are demonstrably wrong.

From ignorance? Did you feel that was necessary? Especially having told me that abiogenesis has been solved. Do you not know that like attracts like. You say something offensive to me and I will return the favor.

First of all, I never said that abiogenesis is air tight with no knowledge gaps. I said that we know (in the colloquial since meaning that we are pretty dang sure) that it is possible for life to come from non life.

Apparently you are very unfamiliar with the logical fallacies. I wasn't calling you ignorant. I said you were performing the argument from ignorance fallacy. It was not a personal attack directed at you (which would be an ad hominem fallacy) I highly suggest you google these so you can brush up on them. Avoiding fallacies will help greatly in your debates.

There had to be some cause for the universe but instead of investigating and providing evidence for what that cause was, I will assert that it is just unexplainable and put it down to the gaps in human knowledge and you must believe. If you don't believe the same thing as me you are a brainwashed, irrational, biased, bigoted and closed minded moron that can't see what is so fundamentally obvious and right under your nose. I will also utilize the special pleading fallacy for god by saying that there is no way the universe could have always existed but then allow that exact same attribute for god" but where I will show my ignorance is in applying the law of what comes into existence has a cause, not that which has always existed, because it cannot have a cause. It didn't begin to exist. And the I realise that I foolishly did not consider that.

Yeah, sorry but flipping it like that doesn't work. That's not my position, actually. I'm doing no special pleading, I didn't personally attack anyone like you did and I actually did consider that the origin possibly never began to exist but I wouldn't assert that as fact. Try again.

 

[viole]

God is eternal. He existed beyond space, time, matter and energy. I do not know the nature of God pre-bang. I only think I know now.

Yes, you think you know. By the way, the third law operates on physical entities. Both ways. So, if one end is supernatural, how can you invoke it?

Occam’s razor

What? Ok, tell me how your God fares better than the Flying Spaghetti Monster because of Occam's razor.

You are the product of nature but and uncaused universe is not. It is a supernatural event as there is nothing in our natural world that can explain it.

Yes, but maybe there is no cause. What makes you think that there is one? And what makes you think it is not an effect?

You will have problems to explain this to me without begging the question.

I wonder how truthful you are being. I like being proven wrong if in doing so increases my understanding of the world I live in but when it confuses it even more I am not so keen on being wrong. I have no desire to make you wrong. I am giving you my opinion. You decide if you are wrong.

Well, me too. The difference is that your arguments do not confuse my view of the world at all.

That is my belief in a nutshell. It is a universal law.

Is your belief a universal law?

Everyone will be warned.

I asked whether they have been warned. You know, the flood and all.

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you agreeing to majority rule?

Nope. I am proving that staying wicked was the most rational choice. A sort of variant of the prisoner's dilemma.

It is just not a viable choice. Wickedness never was happiness.

How do you know? Why would anyone become wicked if it does not provide advantages?

Is it ridiculous. Have you any idea what the depths of wickedness these people were at. We have it all in our world today but there are still good loving and compassionate people to be found. Noah was the only one back then. But it is coming, gradually, but surely. Our society has declined morally steadily over the last 50 years.

Only in your mind. Criminality, murders, private violence, wars have decreased dramatically in the past decades.

Unless you can give me a definition of "moral decay".

Uncaused causes are supernatural. I hold no fear from the supernatural.

I did not say you should fear it. I said you should wonder about its intelligence. The supernatural does not seem to be very smart, I am afraid.

Well, it is if it the result benefits the theory. That is what science does. It checks and recheck and changes if something knew is found. It is as good of a hypothesis as a unique original ancester is. It is not confirmed though, it is still a theory that cannot be tested because abiogenesis is still a mystery. But don't you think that multiply sources would be a better postulate? Wouldn't it make better sense of taxon groups?

Abiogenesis? Don't tell me you confuse common descent with abiogenesis.

Multiple sources would not be a better postulate because we, fungi and amoebas are too similar at molecular level. It would be highly implausible that our similarity could arise from independent trees of life.

But I thought you were not an "evolutionist". So, why do you talk of these things if all life forms have been magically created already in their present form, or close?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Serenity7855]

The bible was written in a lot of allegory and metaphor

And you simple cannot understand allegory and metaphors???????

My three year old grandson understands that.

 

[outhouse]

My three year old grandson understands that.

Which is funny you could not follow his.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Beats me, but you all do, in government, entertainment, the media, and science. I need to research it. .

Hahahaha! I already responded to this but something just clicked. Did you really just say that atheists have leverage in government? You do realize to get into certain offices, especially to be the president you HAVE to be religious or at least fake it. You're too funny. :biglaugh:

 

[Serenity7855]

Oh dear. Another Christian with a persecution complex.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. I am either abusive or I am being abused. It is a common factor in debating against atheists.

Exactly. Everyone is different. The question was how could you so specifically determine how someone would react to the information you would provide to them like you did in your OP, given that every person is different?

It is all down to knowing your job and asking the right questions. I have been doing this for a long time now so I have a lot of experience in asking questions that will give the most accurate answer.

I didn't doubt that you could be more specific. I meant I doubt that you can prove that a superior force caused the universe to exist (assuming that by superior force you meant god).

I have never claim that I can.

Yes, I could say that any fictional being was at the helm. That's the problem with the model. If you can substitute something else and get the outcome, how is it the most realistic possibility?

Yes, but, Occam's Razor. Do you know what I mean by that?

But it didn't read that way. The big bang could certainly be considered a superior force. Force and being are two completely different things.

As I said, I should have said Being and not force.

More persecution complex. We have a miniscule fraction of the people, money, groups, outreach ect. that you do. But you're the underdog. We have WAY too much leverage.

Look, I do not feel persecuted. I have been doing this for a long time so I have developed thick skin.

When the legalisation of homosexuality was past in 1969, I believe, it was passed when parliament were on holiday so only 37% of the votes were used to pass the law. A high proportion of those were gay themselves. Who organised it. The Gay Pride Activists. Now I think it was a necessary law that was brought into force by a manipulative and dishonest organisation. So please do not say that minority groups with different beliefs cannot effect change. They can, and they will do it again. Like the organisers of the recent riots have said, it was a trial run, the next time we will be more organised. Atheists have already effected change in our schools and public places. The Nativity Scene has been taken out of our Shopping malls and schools because of political correctness and the morals of our society have declined to an all time low.

Argument ad populum fallacy. Just because a certain amount of people believe something adds nothing to the truth of the claim. Otherwise you would believe in big foot, alien abductions and a flat earth.

What you must realise that argument ad populum fallacy is that it is not relevant to all situation where the majority belief equals a fact. One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of people do it. However, knowing the dangers of smoking, we instead say that smoking is not a healthy pastime despite the fact that millions do it. That is a fallacy, however, Christianity is a belief system that brings happiness, prosperity, high moral values, strong families, promotes love and kindness to all, so the result is not fallacious. It is, therefore, a sound argument in favour of God. To be honest, it is just another weapon in the atheists arsenal. They use it to discredit that the motivating force behind a movement that can only do good, is not a God. It means that they think 2.2 billion Christians are all liars or deluded. Whenever an atheists seizes on something that could discredit christianity they use it to its maximum effect. This is what you are doing here. We now see through the same old rhetoric. You goto ask though, do they not have better things to do with their time.

It won't embarrass me in the slightest. I don't know and I don't have to have all the answers. I'm not a scientist, it's not my job to know things that professional scientists have yet to be able to answer. But just because we don't know now does not mean that we can jump to conclusion. The answer is simply, I don't know.

But, you have said that we understand the phenomenon of our universe. We don't. We do not have a clue about most of it. We are learning but we have a long, long way to go. It is OK to say you don't know but I took from your reply that you were saying we do know.

More argument ad populum. You need to brush up on your logical fallacies so you will stop making them. Also, the gap is not any proof. I just gave you plenty of examples of how we are INFERIOR to other animals on the planet. Just because we are superior in one specific area, how does that make us overall superior?

It is funny. I think that you need to be the one brushing up.

Yes, if we are looking for the best swimmers we will find them in the fish world. The fasted runners in the wild cat world etc..ect.. But that is not the variables we use to determine superiority in species is it. We use a common denominator to judge the whole of life on earth. intelligence. If we compare the intelligences in animals and us, we are far, far superior to our closet counterpart in the animal Kingdom. The comparison mark is intelligence. It is not swimming, strength, flight, or being able to swim under water. The common factor with us all is intelligence.

Not only atheists are qualified. In fact, I would say that most aren't qualified at all. Including my self. I'm no evolutionary biologist but I do have a basic grasp of the concepts and how it works. When you posit that humans evolved faster or are more evolved than other species, that shows a misunderstanding of the basic principles.

You charge me with a belief I do not have. I believe in evolution 100% but I believe that we were placed here at a much later time, probably around the Cambrian explosion time. You indictment that my understanding of "basic principles" of evolution, suggest that I have two short plank disease, that is, I do not even have a basic understanding of evolution. I am not educated in the field but I do have an environmental engineering degree so it is more then a basic understanding, but, hey ho, I know the score.

Hahahaha. I'm not making sense? Out of all the species on the planet, one of them has to be the most intelligent. That happens to be us, that doesn't make us special. Lets stick you in a cage with a hungry lion and see how superior you feel then.

But I will never be in a cage with a hungry lion because my superiority over the lion means that my intelligence will prevent that ever happening. The common factor is intelligence not big strong teeth and claws.

Because penguins don't have the advanced cognitive function that we do. Again, you are showing a glaringly obvious lack of understanding of how evolution works. Lets stick you, naked, into the arctic with penguins and see how long you last. Penguins have their own niche and are "superior" to us in many ways. I don't know why you can't understand this.

But I will never be in in that situation because my superiority means that my intelligence will prevent that ever happening. The common factor is intelligence not big animal skin coat and a roaring fire.

I don't know where you came up with that. Considering that this is a life permitting planet...you are demonstrably wrong.

That is of course your opinion. May I invite you to Google it. There are thousands of articles that substantiate my claim.

First of all, I never said that abiogenesis is air tight with no knowledge gaps. I said that we know (in the colloquial since meaning that we are pretty dang sure) that it is possible for life to come from non life.

Look, there is a team of researchers that have been studying abiogenesis for the last 50 years. They are no closer today then they were 50 years ago. How do you define non-life. Only that is one of the biggest problems. Finding non-life in a planet that is alive with life. That means creating conditions that meet with those found here 4 billion years ago. The cannot do it. Yet!

Apparently you are very unfamiliar with the logical fallacies. I wasn't calling you ignorant. I said you were performing the argument from ignorance fallacy. It was not a personal attack directed at you (which would be an ad hominem fallacy) I highly suggest you google these so you can brush up on them. Avoiding fallacies will help greatly in your debates.

No, I am familiar with logical fallacy I just believe you are using it incorrectly. It is only a fallacy if the results are negative. Accepting fallacy will help you greatly in debating, or so you think.

Yeah, sorry but flipping it like that doesn't work. That's not my position, actually. I'm doing no special pleading, I didn't personally attack anyone like you did and I actually did consider that the origin possibly never began to exist but I wouldn't assert that as fact. Try again.

I have not attacked anyone. I gave an opinion that you did not like, that is not an attack. Perhaps you are too sensitive, in which case, a debating forum is definitely not the place for you.

Sorry, are you actually saying that what has alway existed had a beginning? That is a direct contradiction.

What exactly do you want me to try again?

 

[Serenity7855]

Hahahaha! I already responded to this but something just clicked. Did you really just say that atheists have leverage in government? You do realize to get into certain offices, especially to be the president you HAVE to be religious or at least fake it. You're too funny. :biglaugh:

No, but I am in the UK so I have an excuse. Why don't you know where I am?

 

[TheGunShoj]

Man, there is just no reasoning with you. I honestly see no point in continuing this conversation. Plus, multi quoting is getting tedious. I'll address a few of your points briefly.

First, I did not feel attacked. I was mostly speaking to the way you addressed the atheist community as a whole and the other atheists posting here and asserting that their position was anti theism.

Yes I know what Occam's razor is and I hardly see how you think that supports your position in the least.

You don't feel persecuted? Because it feels like you do. You keep crying that Christians are attacked and abused blah blah blah. That sounds like you are crying about persecution to me which is a ludicrous notion considering that, when looking at the world, Christians are typically the ones persecuting.

You're ducking the questions again just like outhouse was saying.

Sure, you won't ever be in a cage with a lion or naked in the arctic. But if you were you would surely die. You aren't superior. Your intellect will do you almost no good in those situations. You are human, you aren't built for those situations and you know I'm right but you won't admit it. It's called a hypothetical situation and it's valid.

Intelligence is not the only common denominator. That's an absurd point of view. For arguments sake I will use some traits that we have in common with many other animals.

Many animals have eyes, ears, teeth, finger nails, arms, legs, hair and many other body parts in common.

How do you rationalize the fact that, although we have ALL of these things in common, there is only one common denominator with which we compare ourselves to other animals?

Human eyes, ears, teeth, finger nails, arms, legs, hair and many other body parts are not superior to those of every other animal. In fact, we are inferior in most of these areas, not to every animal but to many.

Cats see better, dogs hear better, many animals have stronger jaws and teeth, have sharp claws, can jump several times their own height or can lift several times their own body weight and have thick fur or coats to keep them protected from the elements.

How do you rationalize that even though we are inferior in so many areas, that our (potentially only) one trait we have where we are truly superior, somehow makes us special above all other species in existence? I don't get it. You're special pleading again.

I thought of a few things to add.

The way you are using ad populum absolutely is a fallacy. You are trying to discredit my statements and give weight to your own by saying X amount of people agree with you and disagree with me. Textbook ad populum.
I believe you are unfamiliar with the argument from ignorance fallacy seeing as how you reacted as though it was a personal attack and not for what it actually was.

Also, the statement that Christianity can do only good is one of the most absurd things I think I've ever read on this forum.

 

[TheGunShoj]

No, but I am in the UK so I have an excuse. Why don't you know where I am?

Because I didn't look. And because people don't live in a box. Are you unfamiliar with everything that happens in the US? I assumed You are on a computer with access to the internet right now.

 

[Parsimony]

No, I am familiar with logical fallacy I just believe you are using it incorrectly. It is only a fallacy if the results are negative.

That isn't even remotely true. A fallacy is still a fallacy even if believing it has good results. Defining the validity of an argument in terms of its consequences is itself a fallacy.

 

[outhouse]

Man, there is just no reasoning with you..

No there is not any reasoning.


And my hats off to you for being so patient trying to walk him hand in hand through logic.

 

[Serenity7855]

Man, there is just no reasoning with you. I honestly see no point in continuing this conversation. Plus, multi quoting is getting tedious. I'll address a few of your points briefly.

Did you mean reasoning with me or do you mean getting me to agree with you. You do realise that I base my faith in God and in his son Jesus Christ. I am a devout Christian. You will never be able to provide evidence that he does not exist as he lives in my heart. He lives in every bodies heart and has written his words right there. To that end if that is the point you refer to then you are right. There is no point in you debating with me if your intentions are to convert me, however, I will discuss with you the evidences that I feel reasonable demonstrates the existence of a God.

First, I did not feel attacked. I was mostly speaking to the way you addressed the atheist community as a whole and the other atheists posting here and asserting that their position was anti theism.

That effectively says that you are gathering within the wolf pack in order to assist in the kill. Coming to the rescue of anti-theists that you feel are not doing so well. A tad condescending.

Yes I know what Occam's razor is and I hardly see how you think that supports your position in the least.

Occam's razor is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.

I am saying that the candidate for the causation of the big bang must be limited to the most likely. God is a worthy candidate.

You don't feel persecuted? Because it feels like you do. You keep crying that Christians are attacked and abused blah blah blah. That sounds like you are crying about persecution to me which is a ludicrous notion considering that, when looking at the world, Christians are typically the ones persecuting.

No, I do not feel persecuted in the slightest. On a debating forum, where I am very familiar with the topics of debate, absolutely not.

I point out your actions here solely for your benefit, giving you the opportunity to introspectively check yourself. I am being considerate. Do that to me and I will take note and consider it. I could be wrong in my approach as I am not a main stream Christian.

You're ducking the questions again just like outhouse was saying.

That is a real insult, I resent that remark and request that you do not repeat it.

Sure, you won't ever be in a cage with a lion or naked in the arctic. But if you were you would surely die. You aren't superior. Your intellect will do you almost no good in those situations. You are human, you aren't built for those situations and you know I'm right but you won't admit it. It's called a hypothetical situation and it's valid.

Hypothetical? Is that what you meant to say, as in relating to a hypothesis.

The scenarios you describe are so vastly improbable that there consideration is nonsensical. The common factor is intelligence.

Intelligence is not the only common denominator. That's an absurd point of view. For arguments sake I will use some traits that we have in common with many other animals.

Many animals have eyes, ears, teeth, finger nails, arms, legs, hair and many other body parts in common.

How do you rationalize the fact that, although we have ALL of these things in common, there is only one common denominator with which we compare ourselves to other animals?

Human eyes, ears, teeth, finger nails, arms, legs, hair and many other body parts are not superior to those of every other animal. In fact, we are inferior in most of these areas, not to every animal but to many.

No, they are not superior but with our intelligence we make them superior. We are inferior to none of them.

Cats see better, dogs hear better, many animals have stronger jaws and teeth, have sharp claws, can jump several times their own height or can lift several times their own body weight and have thick fur or coats to keep them protected from the elements.

I have a set of binoculars that are far superior, both day and night, to any cats vision, made by a human with more intelligence then any animal.

I have seen listening devices that can hear conversations in other people's houses, and know what they are talking about, can a gog do that

I have a draw in my kitchen full of sharp teeth (knives) sharp claws (a meat cleaver) strong jaws (a vice)

I have seen fork lift trucks left many time my weight and I have been on a trampoline, made by man's intelligence, lift me several times my height.

I have a sheep skin coat that has the same effect.

How do you rationalize that even though we are inferior in so many areas, that our (potentially only) one trait we have where we are truly superior, somehow makes us special above all other species in existence? I don't get it. You're special pleading again.

I do not have to rationalise any of it because everything that you think animals are more superior then us in, is simply not true. Our intelligence has given us all of their abilities and more. We can even fly and swim under water. I hope you now get it. Not special pleading just technology.

It is our intelligence that makes us superior. That does not designate independence from the world around us. A superior intellect should quickly recognize the interdepence not only of mankind, but of mankind with all around him. Stewardship naturally comes with the territory. We are the only species which can act as steward, protecting our ecology's future, which should again highlight our superiority. If we surrender our uniqueness, we surrender our responsibility. The wolf and the ape have no responsibility to other species.

We alone can recognize the natural advantages of other species, and use tools to replicate those advantages. We were born without fangs, without wings, slow as a turtle; yet our intelligence has brought us all those abilities, and more. Indeed, our intelligence has borne us up and away from our home planet, an event no other species can even conceive, let alone realize.

We can recognize the artful skills of all the other animals, yet recognize that our intelligence gives us the ability to duplicate, even improve, those skills. We create the knife to duplicate the purpose of the fang, then go beyond by attaching a long wooden handle and our fangs suddenly have range. We borrow the cleverness of the beaver and create the geodesic dome.

A failure to recognize the unique, superior qualities of the human represents a failure of the human spirit itself, an effort to reduce mankind to the level of unthinking animals.

The way you are using ad populum absolutely is a fallacy. You are trying to discredit my statements and give weight to your own by saying X amount of people agree with you and disagree with me. Textbook ad populum.
I believe you are unfamiliar with the argument from ignorance fallacy seeing as how you reacted as though it was a personal attack and not for what it actually was.

Look, you have taken several pot shots at my level of intelligence. A man with basic education, as you accredit me with, could not come on here and enter into constructive and logical debate delivering rebuttals that are extensive and informative, having over 1,700 posts in the thread, writing the equivalent of a short best seller, covering so many areas of discussion with consistency and honesty, replying to so many hostile posters from around the world who have an agenda for the Christian faith. It would be quite impossible to do on basic education.

None of you have done this. I am replying to at least eight posters so I am posting 8 times more post then everybody else, answering several lines of debate, and then you question my credentials. I think I have adequately demonstrated my credentials. You have been here 5 minutes and you are already finding it tedious. You know that that is a sign of a lack in intelligence, don't you, because a knowledgeable mind can flit all over the place giving it plenty of scope in responding. If you do not have it there then you cannot use it. I can, and have written books from my own knowledge. I still can.

No, I am trying to show you that the ad populum fallacy is subjective. It requires an answer before it can be considered fallacious. The idea that smoking is good for you because millions of people do it is a fallacious argument. It is not true. The idea that Christianity promotes long life and we'll being because there are billions of Christians that provide evidence to it is not fallacious. It is true. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Have you never heard it said that you cannot trust an atheist?

Also, the statement that Christianity can do only good is one of the most absurd things I think I've ever read on this forum.

Let me clarify for you what I said. Christianity can do only good, as for their congregations and their interpretations that is not the case. Christianity, if lived according to it precepts and principles cannot do wrong.

 

[Serenity7855]

That isn't even remotely true. A fallacy is still a fallacy even if believing it has good results. Defining the validity of an argument in terms of its consequences is itself a fallacy.

Absolute rubbish. If it is not fallacious then it cannot be a fallacy. The fact that 2.2 billion people say that a God exists is not fallacious as the whole world sees them and their fruits.

 

[Parsimony]

Absolute rubbish. If it is not fallacious then it cannot be a fallacy. The fact that 2.2 billion people say that a God exists is not fallacious as the whole world sees them and their fruits.

My issue here is not with what people believe or how many of them believe it. My issue is with the assertion that the consequences of an argument have any bearing on whether that argument is sound or not. It does not. Whether something is true or false is not dependent on whether it is beneficial or damaging to us. For example, saying that "nuclear war would be bad for us, therefore nuclear war can't happen" or "the ability to regrow lost limbs would be good for amputees therefore we can regrow lost limbs here and now" are both fallacious arguments because the conclusion does not follow.

 

[Bunyip]

Absolute rubbish. If it is not fallacious then it cannot be a fallacy. The fact that 2.2 billion people say that a God exists is not fallacious as the whole world sees them and their fruits.

That is the fallacy of appeal to popularity.