My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Skreeper]

But while I am "smoking the Spirit"

My favorite argument for the existence of God

others are dying.

True Love - Page 21 - The Skeptics Society Forum

And when you read this link you will notice that I linked those in "darkness" to you. So they read your posts. And you will also see that while we call them "those in darkness" they call you the "delusional". The reason is because they say there is no God and you are "delusional" for saying you have met Him because how could you have met Somebody that does not exist.

Now if you follow the link you will see that I am giving them the evidence that Jesus said we should give for His existence.

Mat. 12
38 ¶Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

So let us stick to the Truth and stay with what Jesus said we should do. Because when we stick to the Sign we will find the Anointing there. When we follow our own arguments we will find no Power to sustain it.

Mat. 22
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

So there are "arguments for the existence" and then there is The Sign.

The Bible says the Bible is true. What shocking revelation! In other news: Water is wet. More about that at noon, don't go anywhere!

 

[Johan Abrahams]

The Bible says the Bible is true. What shocking revelation! In other news: Water is wet. More about that at noon, don't go anywhere!

But this time it is: The Bible says . . .the Bible is proven.

 

[bhsmte]

But this time it is: The Bible says . . .the Bible is proven.

Same difference - circular

 

[HitchSlap]

But this time it is: The Bible says . . .the Bible is proven.

The bible has more holes than Swiss cheese.

 

[Aman777]

The bible has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Only to those who cannot understand it. 1Co 2:14 Only born again Christians can.

 

[Johan Abrahams]

The bible has more holes than Swiss cheese.

Look here someone, Nikki, ask for proof of the Sign. And miraculously God provided to her.

True Love - Page 22 - The Skeptics Society Forum

 

[Johan Abrahams]

Same difference - circular

Nope. Proven.

True Love - Page 22 - The Skeptics Society Forum

 

[bhsmte]

Nope. Proven.

True Love - Page 22 - The Skeptics Society Forum

Proven?

Your bar for level of proof, is low.

Don't worry, you can still believe it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Look here someone, Nikki, ask for proof of the Sign. And miraculously God provided to her.

True Love - Page 22 - The Skeptics Society Forum

From that very page - Nikki thinks you're talking nonsense:

"Unfortunately for you, it's not our reading comprehension that's the issue; it's you, Johan. You type nonsense"​

HalleysComet agrees:

"I'm pretty sure he knows that. Accusing us of failing to understand his illiterate and demented gibberish is a common tactic of abusers and con men. Some abusers will deliberately set up situations like that in order to use the tactic later. Using twisted or inaccurate definitions for words also sets up gaslighting, a tactic Johan has a LONG history of relying upon."​

Some miracle...

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I finally found what is so wrong about your argument, it is better suited to "prove" design by human than God.
Only humans design a motor.
Only humans design a robot.
Therefore, when we see an organic self-replicating robot (penguin in this case) , then it had to have been designed by a human.
There, still doesn't make sense but it gets my point across.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I finally found what is so wrong about your argument, it is better suited to "prove" design by human than God.
Only humans design a motor.
Only humans design a robot.
Therefore, when we see an organic self-replicating robot (penguin in this case) , then it had to have been designed by a human.
There, still doesn't make sense but it gets my point across.

That's true, but the argument is also fallacious by equivocation of categories such as 'motor', 'robot', etc. The suggestion is that if you can put a natural object into a category that humans are known to design, then you can claim that it must be designed too. Calling animals 'robots' doesn't work too well, but few people would argue that a flagellum doesn't have a natural 'motor'. But the fact that humans can design something doesn't mean all instances of that category must be designed.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, just putting natural objects into categories where humans have designs, doesn't make them designed. Humans design modes of transport, and a horse can be called a form of transport, and but that doesn't mean horses are designed; humans design houses, and a cave can be called a house, but that doesn't mean caves are designed, etc.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

That's true, but the argument is also fallacious by equivocation of categories such as 'motor', 'robot', etc. The suggestion is that if you can put a natural object into a category that humans are known to design, then you can claim that it must be designed too. Calling animals 'robots' doesn't work too well, but few people would argue that a flagellum doesn't have a natural 'motor'. But the fact that humans can design something doesn't mean all instances of that category must be designed.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, just putting natural objects into categories where humans have designs, doesn't make them designed. Humans design modes of transport, and a horse can be called a form of transport, and but that doesn't mean horses are designed; humans design houses, and a cave can be called a house, but that doesn't mean caves are designed, etc.

True, but since OP has posted this same idea in so many threads to recieve the same logical response but completely ignored it, I decided to use his argument against him.
His argument still doesn't make sense to me, and I understand organic chemistry with ease.

 

[Johan Abrahams]

From that very page - Nikki thinks you're talking nonsense:

"Unfortunately for you, it's not our reading comprehension that's the issue; it's you, Johan. You type nonsense"​

HalleysComet agrees:

"I'm pretty sure he knows that. Accusing us of failing to understand his illiterate and demented gibberish is a common tactic of abusers and con men. Some abusers will deliberately set up situations like that in order to use the tactic later. Using twisted or inaccurate definitions for words also sets up gaslighting, a tactic Johan has a LONG history of relying upon."​

Some miracle...

Actually you should give us the link. Then we can see for ourselves. And we can see it in context which is necessary for understanding.

But ok. Here is some more "nonsense". Freedom at last.

True Love - Page 23 - The Skeptics Society Forum

 

[Johan Abrahams]

Proven?

Your bar for level of proof, is low.

Don't worry, you can still believe it.

The bar is "huge"

All the Skeptics.

[Merged] A God of Love / The Living God - International Skeptics Forum

Superman and God

True Love - The Skeptics Society Forum

 

[DogmaHunter]

So are you saying now that Evolution (I gave the definition many times already) where one species of a type

A "species of a type"?? What strange (and telling) choice of words.

, like a gorilla does turn into, or speciate into, or morphs into, or gives birth to another completely different species like a human?

In context of evolution, every individual that was ever born, was of the same species as its biological parents.

I think it's about time that you learn what gradualism is all about.

Please answer me that simple question, .. does, or does not a gorilla evolve, turn, speciate, morphs or gives birth to a human in it's lifetime?

1. populations evolve gradually, over many generations - not during a single lifetime
2. gorilla's and humans share ancestors. Gorilla's did not and do not evolve into humans.

3. learn about the theory before trying to argue against it. It will help you in not asking stupid questions such as this one.

I don't believe paleontologists that bones of one species evolves into the bone of another species, .. I just can't.

It's a good thing then, that paleontology, or any other scientific field, does not claim that at all.

But hey, I'm a scientist

No you're not.

, so all they have to do is have a camera in one of the graves on a gorilla skeleton, and show me how it speciate into a human?

It's becoming harder and harder to take you seriously.

especially time 1:14 - Pastor Dawkins: "the nostrils move backwards, .. move backwards on the scull, moved backwards on the snout, .." Is he serious? I didn't see it move, did you?

For crying out loud...................................................
Do you really think that such ridiculous "arguments" are going to get you anywhere?
I don't understand what you hope to accomplish with such blatant intellectual dishonesty.

If I didn't know any better, I'ld consider your posts to be satire.

Isn't a population of gorillas or a population of humans made up of individuals?
If yes, then what nonsense are you talking about?
if no, then please explain how, or why a "population of gorillas or humans" are NOT made up of individuals?
Thank you.

Gradualism. Gradualism. Gradualism. GRADUALISM.

Did an individual invent spanish overnight?
Or did spanish develop gradually over time from Latin?
And did a single individual of the community start developing spanish, or was it rather the entire community that gradually developed that language?

It's a "community effort".
Each micro-change is introduced by an individual in the population, yes.
But that is not evolution. We speak about evolution, once that micro-change:
1. manages to survive (ie, is past on to off spring)
2. spreads throughout the population

While an initial change is introduced through an individual, the change only becomes part of the genome of the species when that change has spread throughout the entire population, which will take quite a few generations.

If none of those individuals evolve, you can bet all the transitional fossils that Mr. Dawkins has that the population will not 'evolve/transition' either.

The fossil skulls themselves are from an individual, yes.
An individual that is part of a population, all of which have near identical skulls.

In your clip, there are 3 skulls from 3 different time periods. Each with the nostrils in a different place. Each represents the "state of the species" at that specific time.
The oldest one has the nostrils in the front - like land mammals.
The second, less older one, has the nostrils somehwere in the middle, more to the top of the skull.
The third, youngest one, has the nostrils on top of the head.

It moved back over the course of many millions of years.

In other words; The Father of Evolution admits that "Evolution never happens".

No. In other words: you are completely misrepresenting this in the most brutal intellectually dishonest way.

Please provide evidence contrary to what I have proven over and over again with evidence?

The only thing you've proven, is your ignorance on the subject and your intellectual dishonesty by misrepresenting the material that you have posted.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what's worse, .. an idiot like me, or an entire Forum that claims to know what Evolution is, what it does, .. how it works and don't have any evidence or proof to correct him?

You posted some of that evidence yourself and subsequently completely misrepresented it.
So .... yeah.

If that's how you are going to deal with this subject, then nobody hear can help you except by pointing out how your are (deliberatly?) misrepresenting it.

Repeating that: "evolution happens over a very long period of time effecting an entire generation that is, from what you guys tell me, is without individuals" is not an answer.

Nobody said any such thing. That's you misreprsenting what was actually said, again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As far as I can tell from reading each of these skull fossils is that they are all human. What does this have anything to do with gorillas? Even killing the poor Aborigines to try to prove some delusional Satanic idea that man evolved from gorillas proved this is just a bad idea, and now this "up to date" poster is what you present me with to prove we evolved from gorillas?? 15 poor examples of human skull fragments, .. they are all humans, ..

Again, are you guys serious? Look at these pieces of bones, like "#1, .. tooth, .. and whether it walked upright is unknown"?? By looking at some decayed teeth of a human found in some cave or whatever? Hmm, sure looks like those teeth walked upright to me??

You might as well show me the dog breeds as proof of evolution, at least that would be science, as in "observing the world around us", not dried up bone fragments of skulls, or teeth.

It doesn't matter anyways, even if the first 3 fossils were of gorillas in transition, and the fourth one was a human, .. I would ask you "How did that #3 gorilla turn into that #4 human?"

How many times must it be repeated to you that nobody claims that humans evolved from gorilla's, before it will sink in?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You know what, .. let's just keep the Common Ancestor as a species, and lets make it look just like Peleoartist rendering of those half ape looking humans, the thing is that it still had to be either human or ape. Evolution rule, not mine.

Bzzzt.

Humans ARE apes.
Just like humans ARE mammals.

You guys, .. no, I will stick with Dawkins, .. Dawkins is the one saying; "There are no Crocaduc's, that is what dumb Christians ask! A croc stays a croc, and a duck always stays a duck in evolution!"

And if you would actually take the time to learn the basics of the theory before feeling qualified to reject it at face-value, you would understand that Dawkins quote.

It's the equivalent of why Latin evolved into the Roman languages Italian, spanish, french, portugese.... And how a Roman language like Latin did not and will not evolve into Germanic language like English, German or Dutch.

Because evolution is a vertical process where speciation always consists of species A evolving into a sub species of A.

This is why Felines evolved into housecats, tigers, lions, ... But not into wolves and labradors.

Canines and felines however are both mammals.
They share a mammalian ancestor.

But hey, do your routine, by all means. Ignore these points and then come back asking where you can see a gorilla evolving into a human. Then walk away declaring victory.

Pidgeons playing chess and all....

* Did the entire population wake up one morning, and were now such a completely different species that if they ran over to their previous population, they would no longer be able to reproduce?

Did an entire Latin speaking population wake up one morning speaking spanish?

Once more: GRADUALISM

In other words, no matter what that species looked like, (I gave a lot of examples of hairy man, to a family that walks on all fours, to Ota Benga) by the admittance of the great Evolutionist Dawkins by the rules of Evolution, it remains that same species throughout its lifetime.

Throughout its lifetime. Yes.

So how, by what means does he prove that evolution theory works when he admits it "never happens"!?

He never said such. That's again just you and your ignorance / misrepresentation of what is actually being said.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Forgive me in my ignorance. But is scientific method not supposed to be observable, experimental, repeatable?

Or testable. Note the "or".

How can this apply to macro evolution and origins science?

It is testable/verifiable in
- comparative anatomy
- comparative genetics
- geographic distribution of species
- phylogenies
- ...

Evolution as a theory, is probably one the most established theories in all of science, precisely because there are so ridiculously many independent lines of evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Prove it please!



No it's assumption only! For example - The Steady State Theory - The Big Bang Theory. Both active theories, which one is true. For there can only be one that is true?

Yours Sincerely.

Euh.... steady state theory has long since been discarded.
I'm surprised that you don't take pride in that as a catholic, as it was a catholic priest and physicist (George LeMaitre) that actually developed the big bang theory.

or weren't you aware of that?