The best evidence for Creationism

[SavedByChrist94]

Read my post. It's all in there. Altruism helps those who also carry the altruism gene - sacrificing yourself to help your fellow man increases the odds that your own genome (which exists in your kids, your siblings, etc) will survive. Direct reproduction is not the only way to help ensure the proliferation of your genes.

That doesn't explain why one is good with others. how does one know naturally that it is his/her duty to ensure your gene survival, when they are being good? no one even thinks about genes when helping, we help because we have compassion.

from creation.com, Helpful Animals:

Explanations Flawed
In 1962, Wynne-Edwards put forward the idea that altruism evolved 'for the good of the group', or 'for the good of the species'.9 The idea is that groups with altruists — helpful or caring animals — do better than groups of selfish animals, so the altruistic groups endure better.

But evolutionists admit flaws in this idea. What if a 'selfish' mutant individual arose in a group of altruists, and was able to avoid the cost of being helpful while still benefiting from the group's altruism? Evolutionists admit that as this 'selfish gene' spread through the group, 'the whole system would then break down'.10

Another theory was proposed — the theory of 'kin selection'. This theory tries to take into account that most beneficiaries of altruistic behaviour are relatives of the 'good Samaritan' animal. In its basic form, this theory states that 'a brother or sister shares as many of your genes (half) as a child, so that in helping a sister or brother to survive or reproduce you are helping to perpetuate your own genes (or, to put it another way, making a gain in genetic fitness) as much as if you protect your own child.'11

But evolutionists admit flaws in this idea too. There is hardly gain in genetic fitness when the recipient of the altruistic act is an elderly brother, sister, or other relative that is unlikely to survive much longer anyway.12

And even if the net result to relatives is beneficial, what about the many examples of help given to non-relatives? There are instances where dolphins and whales have supported ill animals of a different species.13 In some cases dolphins have aided humans who were drowning.14 And those birds that squawk when they see an approaching hawk are warning every animal within earshot — they are not counting how many genes they have in common with other birds and animals while the hawk closes in.

Do evolutionists have an answer to this?

Do Me A Favour
Well, sort of, but they wouldn't win a debate with it. The idea is based on one suggested by Robert L. Trivers in 1971. It is called 'reciprocal altruism'.15 The idea of reciprocalism is that cross-species altruism — giving help to non-relatives — occurs because 'an animal helped now will be able to return aid at a later date'.16 The animals are supposed to be saying, 'I'll do you a favour now if you do me a favour in the future'.

But wait a minute. Isn't this exactly what Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' said couldn't happen? The animals that are fittest are supposed to survive while the weak ones perish. What's a fit dolphin doing helping a drowning man or a helpless animal that is not even in its own species? What's a fit meerkat doing staying at home to look after the kids while the rest of the group has a day out with the yellow-mongooses across the Kalahari?

The honest answer is that the explanation for helpful animals cannot be found in a purposeless theory like evolution, but rather in understanding that God the Creator has placed the world's array of animals on earth for His glory and to fill particular roles in the planet's ecology. That some creatures should help others in maintaining that role is no surprise to those who know that God — not evolution — created life on earth.

See above. Appealing to God for the source of your morality means it's only immoral because God says so - if God said it was OK, would you be out raping and pillaging? No, because you feel that it's wrong.

Thing is, God wouldn't make it ok. that's why it's wrong, God condemns rape and we are made in God's image.

Right, and that's encoded into our evolved instincts. The reason those instincts evolved is because such acts destroy society - and society is crucial to our survival.

Now, rape can be an adaptive strategy, and we see this in ducks, geese, dolphins, and other aggressively sexual animals. But it isn't necessarily an adaptive strategy - and your error is in thinking it is. In humans, and many other species, rape is a severe disadvantage.

Besides, as I keep saying, our morality is a product of our evolved instincts tempered or exaggerated by our culture.

You say it is, but where is your proof? I don't see how at all rape being wrong because it "breaks parent bonds" would evolve into what it is now, if it was ever wrong for that reason, that reason would still be at least one of the reasons even if evolved. "breaking parent bonds" isn't even one of reasons why rape is wrong, thus it never was the reason why rape is wrong.

You say they "evolved" that way, but all that is, is an assumption. Rape has been wrong, is wrong, and always will be wrong for being assault, against will/consent, perverting something sacred, and abuse of someone elses body. it's traumatic and it completely goes against God's Holiness, Rightness, and Love.

"breaking parent bonds" isn't nor ever was the reason why rape is wrong.

First, yes, it can: raising a child is a twenty-year investment, and a child is reared best by two loving adults (research shows that the sex and race of the adults doesn't matter; they don't even have to be directly related). Your error is in your naive approach to evolutionary success: for reproduction to be a success, you have to become a grandparent. If one or both parents aren't committed to each other and their child, then the child is less likely to survive and reproduce. That's why promiscuity is bad from an evolutionary point of view: it's naive to think it's just about having many kids; you have to raise them, and that takes commitment.

Second, asking how evolution explains why sex is sacred is putting the cart before the horse - you've yet to show that sex is, indeed, sacred.

If "evolution" happened, sex wouldn't be sacred or private we wouldn't have any dignity at all. it would be a zoo with no love or commitment involved. sex wouldn't be on such a pedestal and importance that it is. the reason why sex is sacred and private is because God commands it to be sacred, to be between a married man and woman to express their love, and to procreate.

Err, that's not what that means. Culture exaggerates moral instincts because our instincts are not set in stone. Catching a ball is learned, but it also becomes instinctive. Likewise, the culture we find ourselves in can place emphasis on a particular evolved moral or behavioural reflex (e.g., listening to one's elders, because they have survived the perils of the world, and can instruct you on how to survive too).

Sometimes, moral instincts contradict: we have the instinct that killing our fellow man is wrong, but also that protecting our kith and kin is right. So what do we do? That's where culture comes in. Culture affects how strongly these instincts are felt: did we grow up in an aggressive culture that rewards the 'protect' instinct and punishes the 'pacifist' instinct? Or were we brought up among the nobles and elite, where the 'aggression' instinct is derided as barbaric (whether true or not, that's what the culture says) - so when the time comes, we run, rather than fight.

Culture takes what's evolved and changes it once again. The instincts are there, but how strongly they're felt is largely a product of your environment.

Your proof? I don't see how our instincts or morals aren't set in stone.

answer this, do you think rape could ever be morally justified? I am assuming you are sane and will answer no. that shows that rape being wrong is objective. therefore Objective Morals exist.

There are numerous flaws at almost every turn, so I'll enumerate them here.

Infinite regression is impossible. Your objection to this is that, if there were an infinity of prior time, we'd never had got to 'here'. My retort is that this simply isn't how infinity works. There are an infinity of rational and irrational numbers between '2' and '3', yet '1 + 2 = 3' works. Why? Because you can 'get' to infinity by an infinity of finite steps, or a finite number of infinite steps. It time is eternal, if there is an infinity of prior causes, then that's your infinity of finite steps: if we posit a universe where there is no beginning to time, the issue of how we get to 'here' doesn't exist - it's only when you conflate finite and infinite universes that the problem arises.

You don't apply that to the real world. there is cause and effect. if there were infinite amount of past events we would never get to here, no matter how you put it. if I was infinitely away from a store for example, I'd never get to the store, since I am infinitely away. it just wouldn't happen. most scientist agree infinite regression is impossible and the universe had a beginning.

so again, since infinite regression is impossible, there is a beginning, and since there is a beginning there is a first cause that has always existed, a first uncaused cause, God.

The uncaused cause is eternal. The uncaused caused only needs to exist long enough to cause the universe. After that, there's no reason why it couldn't wink out of existence - maybe its own destruction is what caused the universe? Who knows. But there's no reason why it must be eternal.

Since the first uncaused cause, is, uncaused, the first uncaused always has and always will exist, so by default is eternal. since the uncaused cause is uncaused, the uncaused cause will always exist. the first uncaused cause, God created time, matter, space, He is not bound to it.

add that to the fact that the first uncaused cause is the creator of the universe and everything in it, so by default is greater than everything. the lesser cannot produce the greater. the first uncaused cause, God, is which no greater can be conceived. to say the uncaused caused was only "temporary" or "nothing" would be delusional, you know better than that.

The uncaused cause is God. This is just a bald assertion on your part. Even if your prior arguments worked, all you've deduced is a first, eternal, uncaused cause. God is a concious, intelligent being who dictates laws and answers prayers - nothing in the Cosmological argument requires that the first cause do any of that.

When you add up all the evidence. The Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Morality, The Bible, The Prophecies, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, and the first uncaused cause is undoubtedly, God.

To deny all the evidence showing that God exist, would be like having all the evidence to send person A to prison for a crime he undoubtedly committed, yet say he didn't when all the evidence adds up to person A being guilty having committed the crime.

The uncaused cause must be that which no thing is greater. Again, this is another bald assertion. All we know about the uncaused cause is that it is eternal, and at some point created the universe. Even if your rationale is right, that something cannot create something greater than itself, that only means the uncaused cause is at least as great as the universe. Not 'greatest', just 'as great as'. Moreover, there is a long history of divine simplicity in theology - the idea that God is a single part, the simplest thing in existence. This goes directly against your own assertion.

Actually the first uncaused cause being uncaused means the first uncaused cause is which no greater can be conceived. the universe by default is lesser than the uncaused cause, because the universe had to be, caused and isn't eternal. compared to the uncaused cause which is eternal and uncaused, that by default makes the uncaused cause greater.

To think of the first uncaused cause, God, as anything less than his creation is absurd. it goes against logic. God is the creator everything in existence, so of course he is more than His creation, God is more than everything. God is which no greater can be conceived.



So again, you cannot deny that it all adds up, First Uncaused Cause, Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Morality, The Bible, The Prophecies, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, God exist.



"atheism" doesn't exist. you aren't an "atheist".

Answer this question, why are you an "atheist"? when "atheism" doesn't exist and there is substantial evidence for God. don't give me the "lack" belief excuse either because there is substantial evidence that God exist, so there is no excuse to "lack" belief. we shouldn't ask why "atheist" "lack" belief because they can't, we have to ask,

why don't "atheist" want God to exist?

Either "atheist" don't know God exist and need to research and look at the evidence or they don't want God to exist even though evidence shows that God exist. I believe it's the latter.

The thing about it is even if "macro-evolution" happened, it still doesn't change the fact that God exist. doesn't change the fact that Jesus Christ died for our sins on the cross and rose from the dead, or the first uncaused cause, Fine Tuning, Morality. so even if "macro-evolution" happened, doesn't change the fact that God exist. added to that is "macro-evolution" is an impossibility, it didn't happen. science, logic and math shows it didn't happen, so it is basically a faith. the only way "macro" evolution could have happened is by God.

It is either, Creation or Theistic evolution. either way is it, Creation, by God. I am a Young Earth Creationist, I trust in God's Word.

God Bless!

Romans 1:20

 

[CabVet]

The Ear, from darwinismrefuted.com

Yet none of that wall of text presents anything that is "irreducibly complex", there are simpler versions of ears in many other animals.

 

[Non sequitur]

The Bacterial Flagellum
The most important person to bring the concept of irreducible complexity to the forefront of the scientific agenda is the biochemist Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University in the United States...

I was just about to take this quasi-seriously, then I saw that...

Someone should familiarize themselves with the Dover trial and how Behe got spanked on that.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree quite strongly.
Evil is not a lack of good, as evil has been committed for a supposed greater good.
Evil is evil, and is also not from a lack of god.
Recent events in the catholic church will show you that some people will perform evil, depraved acts on innocent children and still preach to others that they belive in god (but whether they actually do is debatable I freely admit).

You do not need god to be good, and you can be evil and believe in god.
And yes, I do reject god because of a huge lack of evidence for his existance, I do not do it to be rebelious.

1. Doing anything commanded by God or done in God's image is Good, anything against God or against God's image is evil.

2.There is substantial evidence for God, you cannot "lack" belief.

as I said in my previous post, "atheism" doesn't exist. stop using the "lack" belief excuse.

 

[sandwiches]

There is substantial evidence for God, you cannot "lack" belief.

Such as?

 

[mkatzwork]

Your logic could supposedly 'prove' or 'disprove' any god, which doesn't help your God in the slightest.

Atheism does unfortunately exist, and you are atheist. You are atheist to all of the following:

Zeus, Aramazd, Shangdi, Nana Buluku, Horus, Ukko, Tyr, Janus, Hunab Ku, Coyote, Tengri, Dushara, Odin, Olorun, Perun, Izagani, and so on and so forth.

1. Doing anything commanded by God or done in God's image is Good, anything against God or against God's image is evil.

So genocide and slavery can be morally good and acceptable. Where may I buy a slave if I can find the required 30 pieces of silver?

2.There is substantial evidence for God, you cannot "lack" belief.

"There is no evidence for God, you cannot "have" belief."

as I said in my previous post, "atheism" doesn't exist. stop using the "lack" belief excuse.

""Religion" does not exist. Stop using the "have" belief excuse."

 

[mkatzwork]

It is either, Creation or Theistic evolution. either way is it, Creation, by God. I am a Young Earth Creationist, I trust in God's Word.

God Bless!

Romans 1:20

How would disproving evolution help the cause of your God in even the slightest way more than say Allah or Ahura Mazda or (insert the many thousands of deities in human civilization, all believed with the same fervor as you believe yours, and a large number of them having a book or books, their 'word' to back them up)?

 

[mkatzwork]

Thing is, God wouldn't make it ok. that's why it's wrong, God condemns rape and we are made in God's image.

So in Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to leave only the Midianite virgins (and only the virgins) alive, what exactly was God expecting them to do with them here, or in Judges 5:30 with the 'damsels' or with Zechariah 14 when he says he will gather the nations against Jerusalem, and have the women ravished?

Have tea? Play Scrabble?

God in fact demands that a rape victim must marry her rapist.
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24.)

God has no major problem with rape.

 

[Davian]

1. Doing anything commanded by God or done in God's image is Good, anything against God or against God's image is evil.

2.There is substantial evidence for God, you cannot "lack" belief.

as I said in my previous post, "atheism" doesn't exist. stop using the "lack" belief excuse.

I lack belief in the possibility of gods being anything other than things you read about in books. Can you demonstrate that gods are possible?

 

[Non sequitur]

1. Doing anything commanded by God or done in God's image is Good, anything against God or against God's image is evil.

2.There is substantial evidence for God, you cannot "lack" belief.

as I said in my previous post, "atheism" doesn't exist. stop using the "lack" belief excuse.

Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof. If you don't see any, then you can lack belief.

What kind of evidence? Demonstrable, testable and falsifiable evidence or the "other kind" of evidence?

 

[SavedByChrist94]

So in Numbers 31, where God commands the Israelites to leave only the Midianite virgins (and only the virgins) alive, what exactly was God expecting them to do with them here, or in Judges 5:30 with the 'damsels' or with Zechariah 14 when he says he will gather the nations against Jerusalem, and have the women ravished?

Have tea? Play Scrabble?

God in fact demands that a rape victim must marry her rapist.
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24.)

God has no major problem with rape.

from onyxbits.de:

Social security, retirement pension and health insurance are all concepts that came up along with industrialization. Before that, the only safeguard against starvation in old age or while being too sick to work was to have a family that could and would care for you.

In pre industrialized societies, having a daughter means raising a child that will eventually leave your household to live with the family of her husband (at least in a patriarchy - in a matriarchy it's the other way round) and will therefore not contribute to your old age pension. In such societies, it is only reasonable to ask for compensation.

The bible leaves no doubt that women were/are to be treated as property. As such they either belong to their parents or their husbands and enjoy virtually no rights nor freedom, especially not when it comes to their own sexuality. In other words: Considering wifes to be property has the side effect of making it socially acceptable for their respective owner to decide upon when they must or must not have sex, without asking for consent.

The "biblical society" was a patriarchy and men were most concerned about illegitimate children. You cannot blame them for this though. Given the agricultural state of the middle east, the idea of feeding children that were not your own must have been a nightmare.

Without pregnancy test or contraceptives being available at that time, the only way of making sure that you are not marrying an already pregnant woman was to insist on her being a virgin. A woman that had lost her virginity was therefore pretty much off the marriage market.

So, with these premises in mind, what does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 actually mean in it's historical context?

When a man had raped an unmarried/young woman in old Israel, he had literally turned her into "damaged goods". She would not have been able to find a "respectable" husband afterwards and therefore she would also not have been able to start a family of her own. The implication of this being that the crime deprived her of any chances to gain what was then considered to be social security, health insurance or old-age pension.

As much as any feminist today must shiver with the mere thought of a woman being sold to her rapist, this is not what it was seen as in those days, at all. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes a law suit where the cause of action is not so much the violation itself but the consequences it bears on the victim's future. Namely, the financial loss she could be expected to suffer by not being able to start a family for her own support. The court rule is an attempt to make the violator pay damage repair by forcing him into a marriage and (most importantly) denying him the right to divorce, which he normally would have had (Deut. 24:1-2). In other words: what we see as adding insult to injury today was actually putting the woman in a very strong legal position back then. She became financially secured in a way she could not have archived by a regular marriage.

Now, one could of course point out the insanity of forcing a woman to live with an abusive husband. This, however, is only insane by modern day standards. In biblical times, women generally did not pick their husbands themselves. The idea of a love marriage is a relatively new concept in western societies and has only been around since the romantic era. Before that, marriage was typically arranged by the family and about support, political influence or financial benefit.
In ancient Palestine, a woman's consent was not a requirement to anything. The rule of thumb simply was: you married whom your family picked and you had sex when your husband decided to have it. Women were not emancipated and thinking of domestic violence as a crime did not cross anybody's mind (including the women's - compare it to the situation in poor Arabic countries, where women, subject to the same treatment, do not rebel either). Whether or not it was ok to force a woman into having sex pretty much was only a question of whether or not you were married to her.

So, what's the conclusion here? The laws in the bible were created by a bronze age society for a bronze age society which, given the circumstances and available resources, had to set their priorities differently than we do today. The kind of harm, we can nowadays easily compensate with modern medicine or insurance systems, was often a matter of life and death back then.



And also, God condemns rape, in Deuteronomy 22:25-27: 25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

from DebunkedEvil.blogspot.com:

(Zechariah 14:1-2) Again EB takes a verse out of context, and those who use biblegateway.com or another such site in reference to this (Good idea, by the way), pull up just one more verse after this. It reads: "Then shall the Lord go forth, and fight against these nations". Another translation of verse one "Behold, the day of the Lord cometh." This verse has Israel being defeated for turning away from God, and then God will come to redeem them. The rape described here is the disgusting acts of other nations, and God punishes them for it when he redeems Israel. Hardly condoning rape.


(Numbers 31.7-18): Almost the same thing as above. Again, they say "Clearly Moses approves of rape of virgins". Apparently EB sees the word virgin and immediately thinks rape. Rape, or even sex, is never mentioned in the entire verse. The process above still applies, as well.

(Judges 5. 30): Again there is rape inserted by EB's author. None actually in the verse. A girl for each man means as a slave, not a sex slave. Furthermore, this was actually a lyrical poem sang by Deborah, not meant to be interpreted literally like has been by EB.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That doesn't explain why one is good with others. how does one know naturally that it is his/her duty to ensure your gene survival, when they are being good? no one even thinks about genes when helping,

Right, but that doesn't mean it's there. What actually happens to us? We 'feel', ineffably, that saving other is somehow the 'right' thing to do. That is an evolved response. We aren't intuitively aware that our actions are the result of millions of years of evolution, we aren't born with the knowledge that this sense of right and wrong is a reflex - so we come up with explanations, the most tenacious of which is "goddidit".

from creation.com, Helpful Animals:

Explanations Flawed
In 1962, Wynne-Edwards put forward the idea that altruism evolved 'for the good of the group', or 'for the good of the species'.9 The idea is that groups with altruists — helpful or caring animals — do better than groups of selfish animals, so the altruistic groups endure better.

But evolutionists admit flaws in this idea. What if a 'selfish' mutant individual arose in a group of altruists, and was able to avoid the cost of being helpful while still benefiting from the group's altruism? Evolutionists admit that as this 'selfish gene' spread through the group, 'the whole system would then break down'.10

Another theory was proposed — the theory of 'kin selection'. This theory tries to take into account that most beneficiaries of altruistic behaviour are relatives of the 'good Samaritan' animal. In its basic form, this theory states that 'a brother or sister shares as many of your genes (half) as a child, so that in helping a sister or brother to survive or reproduce you are helping to perpetuate your own genes (or, to put it another way, making a gain in genetic fitness) as much as if you protect your own child.'11

But evolutionists admit flaws in this idea too. There is hardly gain in genetic fitness when the recipient of the altruistic act is an elderly brother, sister, or other relative that is unlikely to survive much longer anyway.12

And even if the net result to relatives is beneficial, what about the many examples of help given to non-relatives? There are instances where dolphins and whales have supported ill animals of a different species.13 In some cases dolphins have aided humans who were drowning.14 And those birds that squawk when they see an approaching hawk are warning every animal within earshot — they are not counting how many genes they have in common with other birds and animals while the hawk closes in.

Do evolutionists have an answer to this?

Yes. Evolution doesn't need apathy to be strictly intra-species. Altruism can manifest in a number of ways. 'Protect my kin' is one, 'defend against predators' is another. If dolphins evolve altruism via the latter, then their altruism would naturally extend to non-dolphin species - not because they violate some Darwinian law, but because, like all evolved instincts, there are side-effects.

In 'help my kin' altruism, the side-effect is that, in large societies, you end up feeling altruistic towards any human. In 'defend against predators', you end up helping non dolphins. Indeed, there is a benefit in some cases to helping other species - just look at how dogs, cats, sheep, and cattle, have flourished because of inter-species cooperation. How concious it is is an interesting question, but an irrelevant one here.

Ultimately, so long as the root behaviour causes a net benefit to the species, the trait will endure. Which leads nicely to the fundamental fallacy of creation.com's reasoning: "I can't imagine how it could have evolved, therefore, it didn't!" - such arguments from personal incredulity are illogical.

Do Me A Favour
Well, sort of, but they wouldn't win a debate with it. The idea is based on one suggested by Robert L. Trivers in 1971. It is called 'reciprocal altruism'.15 The idea of reciprocalism is that cross-species altruism — giving help to non-relatives — occurs because 'an animal helped now will be able to return aid at a later date'.16 The animals are supposed to be saying, 'I'll do you a favour now if you do me a favour in the future'.

But wait a minute. Isn't this exactly what Darwin's theory of 'survival of the fittest' said couldn't happen? The animals that are fittest are supposed to survive while the weak ones perish. What's a fit dolphin doing helping a drowning man or a helpless animal that is not even in its own species? What's a fit meerkat doing staying at home to look after the kids while the rest of the group has a day out with the yellow-mongooses across the Kalahari?

Ah, another fundamental fallacy. See, what creation.com is doing, is taking a popular phrase like 'survival of the fittest', assuming it is an accurate and exhaustive summary of the theory, and then using it to debunk evolution. The problem is that this is a strawman: evolution is not synonymous with 'survival of the fittest' (Darwin never even used the term).

Thing is, God wouldn't make it ok. that's why it's wrong, God condemns rape and we are made in God's image.

Why wouldn't God make it OK? If it's wrong because God says so, then if he said it was right, it'd be right. Appealing to God as your source of morality doesn't make it objective.

You say it is, but where is your proof? I don't see how at all rape being wrong because it "breaks parent bonds" would evolve into what it is now, if it was ever wrong for that reason, that reason would still be at least one of the reasons even if evolved. "breaking parent bonds" isn't even one of reasons why rape is wrong, thus it never was the reason why rape is wrong.

On the contrary, it does do that, even on a minor level, and that's enough for a selection pressure to form. In social species where childrearing is incredibly resource-intensive - such as H. sapiens - committed paternity is a vital assets, and far outstrips promiscuity in terms of reproductive success.

Does rape violate this system of parental bond? Yes. Does preventing rape confer an evolutionary advantage? Yes.

You say they "evolved" that way, but all that is, is an assumption. Rape has been wrong, is wrong, and always will be wrong for being assault, against will/consent, perverting something sacred, and abuse of someone elses body. it's traumatic and it completely goes against God's Holiness, Rightness, and Love.

Now who's making the assumption

If "evolution" happened, sex wouldn't be sacred or private we wouldn't have any dignity at all. it would be a zoo with no love or commitment involved. sex wouldn't be on such a pedestal and importance that it is. the reason why sex is sacred and private is because God commands it to be sacred, to be between a married man and woman to express their love, and to procreate.

a) You have yet to prove that sex is, in fact, sacred.

b) Privacy and dignity are wholly cultural constructs. Topless women in the 1950s would be seen as vulgar, even a public menace. Yet across the world women go topless as a matter of course. The 'dignity' inherent in covering one's breasts is an entirely cultural matter - why would you think sex is any different?

c) Sex is intimate, and serves to cement bonds between prospective parents. This, too, is one of the reasons we evolved to abhor rape: it turns something intimate and bond-forming into something violent and destructive.

Your proof? I don't see how our instincts or morals aren't set in stone.

Simply compare two cultures, and you'll see how morals are different. In the USA, Janet Jackson's nipple caused a national outrage, while things like Darfur are shrugged off. In others countries, this would be reversed; in the UK, for instance, a slip of a nipple would be a mildly humourous, but otherwise unnewsworthy event.

Why? Because a) we've evolved a sense of sexual titilation, b) culture exagerrates or otherwise morphs this evolved sense to focus on different things (in Shakespeare's time, ankles were as erotic as bare breasts are today).

answer this, do you think rape could ever be morally justified? I am assuming you are sane and will answer no. that shows that rape being wrong is objective. therefore Objective Morals exist.

Do I think rape could ever be morally justified? In the case of species like ducks, yes: we may not like it, but their species evolved (or, if you prefer, were designed by a loving God) to use rape as an intricate part of the mechanism. The females' vaginas counter-evolves to ward off the males' penis', a strange kind of evolutionary arms race. In humans, rape may be justified if the alternative is something worse (such as multiple rape).

If we're going down into moral philosophy, you need to define your terms. What, exactly, do you mean by 'moral objectivity'?

You don't apply that to the real world. there is cause and effect. if there were infinite amount of past events we would never get to here, no matter how you put it. if I was infinitely away from a store for example, I'd never get to the store, since I am infinitely away. it just wouldn't happen.

There are two things wrong with your analogy. First, you're wrong about your conclusion: you would indeed reach the story if you took an infinity of finite steps, or a finite number of infinite steps. With time, we have that luxury.

Second, your analogy assumes that you can be 'at' infinity - you can't. It's the same fallacy that makes people not understand how 0.999... recurring is numerically equal to 1. They just can't grasp the fact that there's no end to it.

most scientist agree infinite regression is impossible and the universe had a beginning.

I don't doubt, but this is a case where popular TV shows have been rather misleading. Show me the evidence, the actual, hard evidence, that says the universe had a beginning - not a Big Bang, but a beginning.

Since the first uncaused cause, is, uncaused, the first uncaused always has and always will exist, so by default is eternal.

I disagree. Simply being uncaused doesn't mean you're eternal, for two reasons:
1) it assumes you're part of some linear timeline, which may well not be the case,
2) there's no reason why this uncaused cause couldn't cease to be after the universe is made. Indeed, who's to say the uncaused cause's cessation is why the universe is here.
3) there's no reason why 'uncaused' means 'has existed for eternity' - after all, isn't that exactly the same proposition you're arguing against earlier?
4) there's no reason why 'uncaused' doesn't mean 'came into existence at a finite time' - an event without a caise.

since the uncaused cause is uncaused, the uncaused cause will always exist. the first uncaused cause, God created time, matter, space, He is not bound to it.

If he is outside time, then he cannot do anything. If something is outside time, it isn't eternal - it's static.

add that to the fact that the first uncaused cause is the creator of the universe and everything in it, so by default is greater than everything. the lesser cannot produce the greater. the first uncaused cause, God, is which no greater can be conceived.

1) It's incorrect that "the lesser cannot produce the greater". Ever heard of fractals?
2) Even if it's true, that only means the uncaused cause is greater than the universe - it doesn't mean it's the greatest thing possible. Logically, if your argument worked, we'd only know that there was some object that was at least as great as the universe at work.
3) What, exactly, do you mean by 'greater'? More mass? More space? 'Great' also carries connotation of worth and value - surely you're not equivocating here?

When you add up all the evidence. The Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Morality, The Bible, The Prophecies, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, and the first uncaused cause is undoubtedly, God.

1) Fine Tuning? You've yet to prove that.
2) ID? You've yet to prove that.
3) IC? You've yet to prove that.
4) Morality? You've yet to prove that. At best, if your argument worked, your absolute best conclusion could only be, "evolution can't explain it". That is not an argument for God, FYI.
5) The Bible? You've yet to prove that.
The prophecies? You've yet to prove that.
6) Jesus' resurrection? You've yet to prove that.
7) The First Cause? You've yet to prove that. At best, if your argument worked, you would only have concluded that some object caused the universe to exist. You're yet to equate that to... anything.

"atheism" doesn't exist. you aren't an "atheist".

Liar.

Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. Since I lack belief in deities, I am an atheist.

Wow, that was simple

Answer this question, why are you an "atheist"?

Because I see no evidence for the existence of any deity, hence, I lack belief in them. You may think you have evidence, but I contend that you don't - faulty logic and spotty data do not evidence make.

when "atheism" doesn't exist and there is substantial evidence for God. don't give me the "lack" belief excuse either because there is substantial evidence that God exist, so there is no excuse to "lack" belief. we shouldn't ask why "atheist" "lack" belief because they can't, we have to ask,

Err, what? You assert that you have substantial evidence, but I disagree that you have any. What then?

You assert that atheism doesn't exist, which is absurd. Suppose someone is raised to adulthood, having never heard your arguments. What then?

Romans 1:20 is simply incorrect. Like most things in the Bible, taking an overly literal, out-of-context interpretation of translations of translations of translations of lost text is not the best approach.

why don't "atheist" want God to exist?

Some do, some don't, some don't care. But what we want is irrelevant - only the truth matters, whatever that may be.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof. If you don't see any, then you can lack belief.

What kind of evidence? Demonstrable, testable and falsifiable evidence or the "other kind" of evidence?

The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Fine Tuning, Ontological, Morality, First Uncaused Cause.

I lack belief in the possibility of gods being anything other than things you read about in books. Can you demonstrate that gods are possible?

You need some evidence to believe or disbelieve in something.

There is no evidence for your disbelief. There is evidence for the existence of God.

"atheist" like to claim "lack" belief with no evidence. ignoring the substantial evidence that shows God exist and believing that "something comes from nothing" is delusional.

As my great fellow Christian, ShockAweNow says, "atheism" is a clown and it did not know it.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Fine Tuning, Ontological, Morality, First Uncaused Cause.



You need some evidence to believe or disbelieve in something.

There is no evidence for your disbelief. There is evidence for the existence of God.

"atheist" like to claim "lack" belief with no evidence. ignoring the substantial evidence that shows God exist and believing that "something comes from nothing" is delusional.

As my great fellow Christian, ShockAweNow says, "atheism" is a clown and it did not know it.

Did someone say evidence for a god? Ok, I'll bite, which god and what evidence??

 

[Non sequitur]

The Bible, Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection, Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity, Fine Tuning, Ontological, Morality, First Uncaused Cause.

So, the non-demonstrable, non-testable and non-falsifiable evidence.

That kind of evidence proves you wrong.

 

[Davian]

The Bible,

is not evidence.

Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection,

Unsubstantiated.

Intelligent Design,

Creationism dressed up as science.

Irreducible Complexity,

Long since shown to be reducible.

Fine Tuning,

Do you know why it is called the 'weak' anthropic principle?

Ontological,

Presupposition.

Morality,

Unsubstantiated.

First Uncaused Cause.

Special pleading. You cannot show that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause, and that the cause necessarily would have to be a deity - or that deities are even possible.

You need some evidence to believe or disbelieve in something.

There is no evidence for your disbelief.

You are incorrect. None is needed.

There is evidence for the existence of God.

But you have provided nothing that does not support far more parsimonious explanations.

"atheist" like to claim "lack" belief with no evidence.

*I* do not have to provide evidence, as I am not making the positive claim. You are.

ignoring the substantial evidence that shows God exist

You have failed to provide this "substantial evidence" that you keep referring to.

and believing that "something comes from nothing" is delusional.

I do not believe that. Or are you now telling me what I believe?

As my great fellow Christian, ShockAweNow says, "atheism" is a clown and it did not know it.

Are you calling me a clown?

So are insults and apologetics are all you have? As I undertand it, both are in violation of the rules for this forum.

And you still have not addressed my point: You have failed to demonstrate that gods are even possible.

 

[Greg1234]

is not evidence.

Determined by you. People will decide independently though. I find your claim to be false.

Unsubstantiated.

Which is contrary to saved and my belief. And people will decide on their own.

Creationism dressed up as science.

And methodological naturalism is conspicuous. There is nothing wrong with philosophy in science.

Long since shown to be reducible.

Thanks for sharing.

Do you know why it is called the 'weak' anthropic principle?

Do tell.

Presupposition.

Says who?

Unsubstantiated.

Again, people will decide on the nature of mind and cast judgement on your position accordingly. It's not unsubstantiated.

Special pleading. You cannot show that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause, and that the cause necessarily would have to be a deity - or that deities are even possible.

Which goes back to your claims above about the bible, Jesus, ID and the nature of mind, all of which are not shared and can be seen to be erroneous.

You are incorrect. None is needed.

Then a lack of belief in a Godless reality requires no evidence.

But you have provided nothing that does not support far more parsimonious explanations.

I find that to be untrue and others will decide independently.

*I* do not have to provide evidence, as I am not making the positive claim. You are.

Then Saved's lack of belief in a Godless reality is negative. Positions are neutralized.

You have failed to provide this "substantial evidence" that you keep referring to.

Saved has. Anyone passing by these forums can also pass judgement. Your motives then come into question.

I do not believe that. Or are you now telling me what I believe?

Are you calling me a clown?

So are insults and apologetics are all you have? As I undertand it, both are in violation of the rules for this forum.

And you still have not addressed my point: You have failed to demonstrate that gods are even possible.

You have waved points away. Thanks for sharing though.

 

[Davian]

And you still have not addressed my point: You have failed to demonstrate that gods are even possible.

You have waved points away. Thanks for sharing though.

He failed to address my point; I see you did not step up to the plate.

While you are here, do you want to go back over those other points you evaded a while back?

 

[Non sequitur]

Determined by you. People will decide independently though. I find your claim to be false.

Anybody can take non-demonstrable, non-testable and non-falsifiable evidence and arrive at anything.

This sounds like the least smart and most embarrassing thing to do...

 

[mathetes123]

is not evidence.

Unsubstantiated.

Creationism dressed up as science.

Long since shown to be reducible.

Do you know why it is called the 'weak' anthropic principle?

Presupposition.

Unsubstantiated.

Special pleading. You cannot show that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause, and that the cause necessarily would have to be a deity - or that deities are even possible.

You are incorrect. None is needed.

But you have provided nothing that does not support far more parsimonious explanations.

*I* do not have to provide evidence, as I am not making the positive claim. You are.

You have failed to provide this "substantial evidence" that you keep referring to.

I do not believe that. Or are you now telling me what I believe?

Are you calling me a clown?

So are insults and apologetics are all you have? As I undertand it, both are in violation of the rules for this forum.

And you still have not addressed my point: You have failed to demonstrate that gods are even possible.

You have failed to demonstrate how everything came from nothing and created itself with no intelligent cause.