Where is your evidence creationists?

revo74 · Dec 12, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Noah was a sinner like you and I are.

God said why He picked him:

Genesis 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

And for the record, God created Adam & Eve perfect; His obligation, if there was one, ended after He told Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit.

You're confused. One can be a sinner and wicked and one can be a sinner and not wicked. We are all sinners according to Christian theology, but that doesn't mean we are all wicked too. One could be a very good person (far from a wicked one) and a sinner.

Noah may have been a sinner, but he wasn't looked upon as being wicked.

"5 And G[SIZE=-1]OD[/SIZE] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

It's pretty clear according to this scripture and the definitions of sin and wicked that they are not one in the same.

By the way are you planning on addressing all the other points I directed toward you?

revo74 · Dec 12, 2011

selfinflikted said:
But even possessing the ability to become 'not perfect' means that they weren't perfect to begin with. Or something. I think.

A perfect agent would be incapable of committing an imperfect action.

AV1611VET · Dec 12, 2011

revo74 said:
By the way are you planning on addressing all the other points I directed toward you?

No.

Davian · Dec 12, 2011

revo74 said:
You're confused. One can be a sinner and wicked and one can be a sinner and not wicked. We are all sinners according to Christian theology, but that doesn't mean we are all wicked too. One could be a very good person (far from a wicked one) and a sinner.

Noah may have been a sinner, but he wasn't looked upon as being wicked.

"5 And G[SIZE=-1]OD[/SIZE] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

It's pretty clear according to this scripture and the definitions of sin and wicked that they are not one in the same.

By the way are you planning on addressing all the other points I directed toward you?

AV1611VET said:
No.

It was AV that introduced me to how he uses evasion as an attempt to support his assertions.

Oh, and welcome to CF, revo.

revo74 · Dec 13, 2011

Davian said:
It was AV that introduced me to how he uses evasion as an attempt to support his assertions.

Oh, and welcome to CF, revo.

I won't be here much longer. I will start a thread shortly that explains how beliefs transcend the spoken word and are often places where we assign emotional attachments, which prevent many religious people from being able to see reason clearly on subject matter that conflicts with their beliefs.

This is the first time I have debated with a theist is quite some time. Recently I have been arguing with atheists, which are more challenging and fun. I argue that design (intention) is a better explanation as the cause of the Universe than chance (non-intention).

revo74 · Dec 13, 2011

AV1611VET said:
No.

That's fine, but you should at least rethink your position on certain beliefs. That is if you are interested in seeking truth.

someguy14 · Dec 13, 2011

revo74 said:
prevent many religious people

Humble yourself brother.

Davian · Dec 13, 2011

revo74 said:
I won't be here much longer. I will start a thread shortly that explains how beliefs transcend the spoken word and are often places where we assign emotional attachments, which prevent many religious people from being able to see reason clearly on subject matter that conflicts with their beliefs.

This is the first time I have debated with a theist is quite some time. Recently I have been arguing with atheists, which are more challenging and fun. I argue that design (intention) is a better explanation as the cause of the Universe than chance (non-intention).

The false dichotomy, a very popular topic on this board. But that might be better suited for another thread.

revo74 · Dec 13, 2011

Davian said:
The false dichotomy, a very popular topic on this board. But that might be better suited for another thread.

What is a false dichotomy?

CabVet · Dec 13, 2011

revo74 said:
What is a false dichotomy?

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."

revo74 · Dec 13, 2011

CabVet,

I forgot to place an "a" in my sentence. I meant to say "What is a false dichotomy?", but even then I realize the sentence was poorly structured.

I know what a false dichotomy is. What I wanted to ask was: what exactly are you referring to in my post when you say I have invoked a false dichotomy?

CabVet · Dec 13, 2011

revo74 said:
CabVet,

I forgot to place an "a" in my sentence. I meant to say "What is a false dichotomy?", but even then I realize the sentence was poorly structured.

I know what a false dichotomy is. What I wanted to ask was: what exactly are you referring to in my post when you say I have invoked a false dichotomy?

Haha, that's what I get for not reading all the posts you were answering to But I am glad I posted the definition as I am sure I will use it many times

Davian · Dec 14, 2011

revo74 said:
CabVet,

I forgot to place an "a" in my sentence. I meant to say "What is a false dichotomy?", but even then I realize the sentence was poorly structured.

I know what a false dichotomy is. What I wanted to ask was: what exactly are you referring to in my post when you say I have invoked a false dichotomy?

You claimed that "design (intention) is a better explanation as the cause of the Universe than chance (non-intention)".

The false dichotomy arises from your implication that those are the only two options on the subject of the cause of the universe.

driewerf · Dec 14, 2011

revo74 said:
You have created a huge problem for yourself.

If god ceased to create ex nihilo on the 7th day (genesis story) then that means every single creature on earth descends from those that were on Noah's arc. Do you believe this yes or no? If no then explain please. If yes then you have all sorts of problems to contend with.

If species don't evolve into different species then the only way to get more species is if god creates them. We know that many species go extinct every year. If this is true then we will eventually hit 0 since god is not making any more. Do you believe this as well? If no then explain please.

According to your belief, every species on earth was once on Noah's arc and the number of species living on earth today is significantly less than during the time of Noah since species go extinct every year by the thousands and god isn't creating any more of them

The entire Noah's story is riddled with problems if taken literally. Problems that can only be dismissed by someone who's incapable of reasoning honestly.

AV1611VET already answered that, some time ago.
I copy - paste this without any editing, change, deleting or adding anything:

AV1611VET said:
I'm hoping to show that not nearly -- (not even close to...) -- as many animals had to board the Ark as some think.

Picture this as an oversimplified example:

The Ark comes to rest with just the aforementioned animals (plus Noah and his family) aboard.

The unicorns disembark -- go out -- get pregnant and give birth to another unicorn, a horse, a cow, a lion and a tiger.

They get pregnant again and give birth to a hippopotamus, a platypus, an aardvark, etc.

See where I'm coming with this?

A kind is an animal with DNA specially encoded for punctuated equilibrium; and because of them, you don't need the Ark crammed full of every living creature in existence at the time, and you don't need long explanations as to how tree sloths got from the Ark to where they're found today, etc.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7520877-2/#post56361063

AV1611VET · Dec 14, 2011

driewerf said:
AV1611VET already answered that, some time ago.
I copy - paste this without any editing, change, deleting or adding anything:

Thank you, driewerf; I appreciate it!

revo74 · Dec 14, 2011

Davian said:
You claimed that "design (intention) is a better explanation as the cause of the Universe than chance (non-intention)".

The false dichotomy arises from your implication that those are the only two options on the subject of the cause of the universe.

A third option is necessity.

People generally don't argue for necessity so I don't bother with it.

driewerf · Dec 14, 2011

AV1611VET said:
Thank you, driewerf; I appreciate it!

Your christian brethren appreciate this too.

Davian · Dec 14, 2011

Davian said:
You claimed that "design (intention) is a better explanation as the cause of the Universe than chance (non-intention)".

The false dichotomy arises from your implication that those are the only two options on the subject of the cause of the universe.

revo74 said:
A third option is necessity.

People generally don't argue for necessity so I don't bother with it.

The universe may have always existed, just not in its current form.

And why would we assume that the instantiation of the cosmos required a deity? And why *yours*?

There may be other options that I have not come across yet.

revo74 · Dec 14, 2011

driewerf said:
AV1611VET already answered that, some time ago.
I copy - paste this without any editing, change, deleting or adding anything:

The post that he failed to address was post # 50, which included the following:

1. I specifically wrote "almost all" because I was under the impression Noah wasn't wicked and that is why he chose him.

1 & 2. You cannot blame free will for the fact that all men or almost all men turned out wicked. At the very least god shares the blame if he is not entirely responsible himself, which I believe is the case. There are many if not an infinite amount of ways that god could have created a natural world where free will exists. He decided to choose a world where he knew in advance (because he is omniscient) the people would all or almost all turn out wicked. These human emotions of grieving and repenting were brought onto him by his own hand. This is a problem that you cannot account for.

What is god's purpose for man? From my understanding it is that man inherits the kingdom of god. God wants the maximum number of men through their own free will to come to know and love god. Well he obviously did a very poor job his first time at it, so much so that he had to erase the drawing board and start over. This does not sound like the work an agent with infinite powers.

If god is the creator and he is also omniscient then he knew what the result of his actions would be. He knew that all of man or most of man would turn out wicked and that it would bring himself grief. He knew that he would hit the reboot button and start all over. I am sorry sir, but this is a major problem that you need to address.

If god was not omniscient then this problem would go away. Well...perhaps only partially because he is would be omnipotent. It would still be a mistake for an omnipotent all wise being to get things so wrong. God is said to be perfect. Perfect beings don't make mistakes like these, perfect beings don't have mortal emotions (which you had no response to).

The attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence cause many, many logical problems for god. As does the notion of perfection.

I would also like to mention that we have a very good understanding about the nature of people through many years of observation and science. There are some people who are inherently kind for example. This knowledge conflicts with the notion that every single or at the very least well over 99% of them turned out to be wicked.

3. Your answer here places god in a real bad light. What you're basically saying is, and what the entire floor story conveys is that god desperately wants free willed creatures to turn to him and the actions he takes to accomplish this fails miserably.

Incompetence, desperation, repentance and grievance are not attributes of an all-powerful god.

4. A definition of deliberate is: To think carefully and often slowly, as about a choice to be made.

God certainly made choices when he designed the Universe did he not?

revo74 · Dec 14, 2011

Davian said:
The universe may have always existed, just not in its current form.

And why would we assume that the instantiation of the cosmos required a deity? And why *yours*?

There may be other options that I have not come across yet.

The Universe may have existed eternally, however, contemporary cosmology suggests it had a finite beginning some 13.72 billion years ago.

There may be other options, but if they cannot be defined and argued for then why should we consider them?

Deism is often misunderstood because the world derives from the Latin word deus, which means god or deity. Deism is not necessarily a belief in a deity/god, but a creator(s)/force. The term god is simply used as a label for this unknown, undefined, creator(s)/force.

Since Deism has no dogma, tenets or sacred text that say how things must be, the answers are not always cut and dried. Bear in mind that the answers that follow merely represent the beliefs of many Deists. No one answers for all Deists.

Deism was intended to grow and evolve with new evidence and arguments.

I hold an unassuming deistic view. It goes like this:

As a result of knowledge revealed to me with the aid of reasoning, I conclude that design is the best explanation for the nature of our Universe. It appears to me that the Universe was contrived and not a result of random events. That the intention of some creative intelligence was at work.

I am an agnostic in the fact that I admit I do not "know". I am a weak deist because I don't maintain a very high degree of certainty with my belief. I am therefore best classified as an agnostic/weak deist.

If you like I can provide you with reasons and evidence to support my claim, however, this thread is probably not the best place to do it.

Where is your evidence creationists?

Newbie

Newbie

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

fallible

Newbie

Newbie

someguy14

Guest

fallible

Newbie

Question everything

Newbie

Question everything

fallible

a day at the Zoo

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Newbie

a day at the Zoo

fallible

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency