Logic dictates that there is a God!

[Lionz]

Do you see Player anywhere in here...

How about we try to have a discussion without flaming? What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does? Has life come from non-life once and only once?

Q. What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does?

A. DNA is the same structure. To some, this is far more logical than an invisible creator who has never been seen or heard...ever.

DNA is evidence for a common designer and He has been seen and heard perhaps. We should ask ourselves how many people we have to deny as blatant liars if we are to claim He's never been heard maybe.

Q. Has life come from non-life once and only once?

A. Perhaps, Perhaps not.

Is it not possible that life is a rare thing that takes just the right combination for it to start?

Maybe I'm really not sure if anything is impossible.

Do you not think life is incredibly hard to create, since you need to believe that an outside creator must be the only way for it to happen?

Maybe hard is relative and I don't have to believe that depending on definition at least and I'm dreaming for all I know really, but are there not sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures that show underlying intelligent design and forethought at work?

Since there are billions of stars and possibly millions or billions of planets with near infinitely different environments, is it not possible that there are many that life could happen, but happen in a different way?

Maybe I'm not sure if anything is impossible, but can you elaborate?

Or perhaps have happened long ago, and traveled from one of the millions of meteorites and comets that have hit our planet over the course of millions of years?

What suggests to you that meteorites and comets have hit any planet for millions of years?

Now...name one reason this is impossible, and requires a --- snapping his fingers for this to happen. One reason other than we dont yet fully understand it that makes this impossible, or even improbable with any degree of real logic or example.

I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe, but what does evidence actually suggest has happened? What would RNA transcription errors at individual levels do to explain penises and vaginas? Maybe it seems as though they were made for eachother or at least one for the other. Was there a first of each that happened to come about at about same moment in time and they happened to meet up? Would that not be evidence for a Creator? Did more than one of each come to be at about the same moment in time and two or more of them met up after that? Would that not be even more evidence for a Creator? Were there individuals with male organs and female organs who later evolved offspring with only one or the other? What suggests that's the case and what led to offspring with only one or the other if so?

Now, after doing that, explain how a --- is a more probable explanation, let alone a more logical one.

I'm not sure what is referred to for sure maybe, but I might be able to give numerous reasons. Does the second law of thermodynamics not hold that entropy has increased in the Universe as a whole over time? Did particles evolve into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolve into living materials and living materials evolve into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can intelligently control future evolution and all of that happen without there being a decrease in entropy in the Universe?

Further, since man has created many, many stories and tales throughout history, many of which we know to be untrue, why do you contend that the one you happen to believe, must be true?

Do you have some examples? There is actually mythology that is perverted history perhaps. There is fulfilled prophecy backing Him up that you should look into maybe.

Is it not, simply because, if you accepted it were not true, than everything you believed as a child and an adult, would simply become incorrect, so you hang onto this belief, no matter what?

First of all, I'm not sure what must be true maybe. Secondly, I was not raised in a family you would consider to be a Christian Church going type family and I even got involved with witchcraft at one or more point in life perhaps.

Is that logical?

It would not be by any means maybe.

NOTE: I've replaced stuff with dashes and am misquoting in here maybe. People commonly call Him words that have to do with names of false deities perhaps.

[Lionz]

Is wikkipeadia an original name for wikipedia?

[Mach1tosh]

Do you see Player anywhere in here...

How about we try to have a discussion without flaming? What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does? Has life come from non-life once and only once?

Q. What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does?

A. DNA is the same structure. To some, this is far more logical than an invisible creator who has never been seen or heard...ever.

Q. Has life come from non-life once and only once?

A. Perhaps, Perhaps not.

Is it not possible that life is a rare thing that takes just the right combination for it to start?

Do you not think life is incredibly hard to create, since you need to believe that an outside creator must be the only way for it to happen?

Since there are billions of stars and possibly millions or billions of planets with near infinitely different environments, is it not possible that there are many that life could happen, but happen in a different way?

Or perhaps have happened long ago, and traveled from one of the millions of meteorites and comets that have hit our planet over the course of millions of years?

Now...name one reason this is impossible, and requires a God snapping his fingers for this to happen. One reason other than we dont yet fully understand it that makes this impossible, or even improbable with any degree of real logic or example.

Now, after doing that, explain how a God is a more probable explanation, let alone a more logical one.

Further, since man has created many, many stories and tales throughout history, many of which we know to be untrue, why do you contend that the one you happen to believe, must be true?

Is it not, simply because, if you accepted it were not true, than everything you believed as a child and an adult, would simply become incorrect, so you hang onto this belief, no matter what?

Is that logical?

I think you may have stumped them.
So I slandered God. Guess I'll see you in hell too.
These head in the sand simpletons make my brain hurt with their bafflegab and almost inhuman resistance to logic and evidentiary proof that contradicts their beliefs.

[john9blue]

^ i love it when someone new comes in and thinks we haven't heard their dogma before

[PLAYER57832]

^ i love it when someone new comes in and thinks we haven't heard their dogma before

Except, too often that is all people on BOTH sides have heard, the rough outline of what they think evolution is and the rough outline of what young earth creationists think. Few on either side really and truly understands much about the other.

And, if these threads are much of an example, most won't bother to research the veracity of the various claims. Though, I will say more evolutionists take the time to understand young earth creationism, partly because we still do outnumber young earth creationists, even here in the US. Also, a good many young earth creationists like to insist that they are the only creationists who exist. Even acknowledging that most reconcile faith and the theory of evolution is not acceptable to many supporters of young earth creationism.

That is part of why I wish more would have posted in the evolution threads.

[Mach1tosh]

^ i love it when someone new comes in and thinks we haven't heard their dogma before

My karmha ran over your dogma.

[john9blue]

^ i love it when someone new comes in and thinks we haven't heard their dogma before

My karmha ran over your dogma.

What's my dogma?

[AAFitz]

Lion:How about we try to have a discussion without flaming? What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does? Has life come from non-life once and only once?

lion:Q. What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does?

A. DNA is the same structure. To some, this is far more logical than an invisible creator who has never been seen or heard...ever. [/quote]

lion:DNA is evidence for a common designer and He has been seen and heard perhaps. We should ask ourselves how many people we have to deny as blatant liars if we are to claim He's never been heard maybe.

Perhaps you are a blatant liar if you claim He has been heard? Are you not a liar if he does not exist?

Lion:Q. Has life come from non-life once and only once?

A. Perhaps, Perhaps not.

Is it not possible that life is a rare thing that takes just the right combination for it to start?

lion: Maybe I'm really not sure if anything is impossible.

I agree, its very possible life needs no creator, and can happen. It actually seems more likely than an all powerful, invisible creator, that no one alive has ever seen. Sure, a creator is possible, but that does not mean he must exist for life to exist, especially if nothing is impossible.

Do you not think life is incredibly hard to create, since you need to believe that an outside creator must be the only way for it to happen?

Lion: Maybe hard is relative and I don't have to believe that depending on definition at least and I'm dreaming for all I know really, but are there not sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures that show underlying intelligent design and forethought at work?

No. there is absolutely no reason to believe it was created by an outside force, any more than there is a need to believe the sun is a God named Ra. Is not your only evidence of intelligent design that you do not fully understand how it truly came about?

Since there are billions of stars and possibly millions or billions of planets with near infinitely different environments, is it not possible that there are many that life could happen, but happen in a different way?

lion: Maybe I'm not sure if anything is impossible, but can you elaborate?

No need to elaborate, if you cant understand it, perhaps you can reread it? or think?

Or perhaps have happened long ago, and traveled from one of the millions of meteorites and comets that have hit our planet over the course of millions of years?

lion: What suggests to you that meteorites and comets have hit any planet for millions of years?

what suggests God created the moon with craters only 6000 years ago, but not one mention of the moon getting hit by millions of objects is around. Perhaps they forgot to mention it? Does not the moon have craters on all areas? Is it not true there are no accounts of things hitting the moon? Must it not be true that either the moon was hit by craters before man, and all at once, or that they obviously, and clearly happened well before man was ever alive? Do not the many craters on earth, clear evidence of massive impacts, which are very eroded, prove that something hit the earth then, and many times, and make it obvious that as the moon was hit by a near infinite number of meteorites of different sizes, that the earth was too? Or is it more likely that god made craters just to fool us?

Now...name one reason this is impossible, and requires a --- snapping his fingers for this to happen. One reason other than we dont yet fully understand it that makes this impossible, or even improbable with any degree of real logic or example.

lion: I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe, but what does evidence actually suggest has happened? What would RNA transcription errors at individual levels do to explain penises and vaginas? Maybe it seems as though they were made for eachother or at least one for the other. Was there a first of each that happened to come about at about same moment in time and they happened to meet up? Would that not be evidence for a Creator? Did more than one of each come to be at about the same moment in time and two or more of them met up after that? Would that not be even more evidence for a Creator? Were there individuals with male organs and female organs who later evolved offspring with only one or the other? What suggests that's the case and what led to offspring with only one or the other if so?

No. What suggests that an existence of a vagina and a penis requires a God...again, the simply fact that you dont happen to understand their existence? Has it not been the history of man to make up stories to explain things they do not understand? Have not many countless stories been proven wrong? Is it not more logical to assume that all stories are probably made up, and that science is more reliable?

Now, after doing that, explain how a --- is a more probable explanation, let alone a more logical one.

lion: I'm not sure what is referred to for sure maybe, but I might be able to give numerous reasons. Does the second law of thermodynamics not hold that entropy has increased in the Universe as a whole over time? Did particles evolve into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolve into living materials and living materials evolve into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can intelligently control future evolution and all of that happen without there being a decrease in entropy in the Universe?

I have no idea, but does me not knowing, mean there must be a God as the only explanation? Or is that just not the easy way out?

Further, since man has created many, many stories and tales throughout history, many of which we know to be untrue, why do you contend that the one you happen to believe, must be true?

Lion:Do you have some examples? There is actually mythology that is perverted history perhaps. There is fulfilled prophecy backing Him up that you should look into maybe.

So you are saying there is tangible proof backing Him up, and not just people saying he exists? And a book, or books, many of which are conflicting in many ways? Have there not been countless societies that have worshiped countless gods with infinitely different ideas of his supposed powers? Does this alone not suggest that all Gods are probably made up, and that any true God of Good, would allow all people to know of him, and not just the lucky few, of which you just randomly and luckilly just happen to belong too?

Is it not, simply because, if you accepted it were not true, than everything you believed as a child and an adult, would simply become incorrect, so you hang onto this belief, no matter what?

lion: First of all, I'm not sure what must be true maybe. Secondly, I was not raised in a family you would consider to be a Christian Church going type family and I even got involved with witchcraft at one or more point in life perhaps.

perhaps it was obviously hypothetical, and is meant to explain the reason why many believe and never shed such beliefs?

Is that logical?

Lion: It would not be by any means maybe.

Except people believe things that are not true from birth to death, and have since the existence of man. It is a common psychological process to not give up on held beliefs, for fear of change, even when there is much evidence to support those beliefs are wrong. Does this not suggest that all human beliefs are subject to scrutiny, and not to be taken of proof of anything more than that people are able to believe a great number of things? There is real proof that people believe things that cannot be true, and die believing those things, because many believe different things, and both cannot possibly be correct, which means many have necessarily believed the wrong thing until death. I agree its not logical though to not question beliefs no matter what. Though the creator of this thread said he would do just that, and hes the one stating logic dictates there is a god.

NOTE: I've replaced stuff with dashes and am misquoting in here maybe. People commonly call Him words that have to do with names of false deities perhaps

.

Perhaps its you that is worshiping a false deity, and they are correct perhaps? Or do you have more proof that your God, is more likely than their God? Or any?

[Lionz]

You claim that there are not sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures that show underlying intelligent design and forethought at work? Flowers or pollinating insects? Which came first if one did?

You might have asked this...

Since there are billions of stars and possibly millions or billions of planets with near infinitely different environments, is it not possible that there are many that life could happen, but happen in a different way?

Happen in a different way than what?

Moon craters actually back me up without you realizing it maybe. You say the many craters on earth? How about count how many moon craters there are and then count how many earth craters there are and then ask yourself if you think earth is millions of years older than the moon? Sure an Intelligent Creator did not form spheroids out of heavenly clouds of moving matter and smooth out earth afterwards? Also, maybe we should discuss this if we are to discuss the moon...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... 4/moon.asp

And this...

Well, before they went to land on the moon in 1969, they were very concerned that going to the moon would be a problem because of the dust on the moon. They did all sorts of studies and decided the dust would be an inch thick every 10,000 years. They said, "Man the moon is billions of years old, wow! Billions of years divided by 10,000, there is going to be a lot of dust on the moon!" They were concerned the guys would actually sink into the dust. I talked to the guy that created, designed, and built the radio back pack that Armstrong was wearing when he was on the moon. He was instructed, he is a pastor in Wisconsin now, he said, "I was instructed to make the back pack dust-proof just in case they sank into the dust. We thought there might be a problem [and] we want to be able to communicate with the guys." Hey, how are you doing down there? Sank into the dust! So to prevent the spacecraft from sinking in, they put huge landing pads on the spacecraft to prevent it from sinking in. They call it the snow shoe affect, spread the weight out. Cost millions of dollars more to add these duck feet, they called them. They were worried about the spacecraft sinking into the dust. It was a very serious concern. I listened to the conversation of the guys when they landed on the moon, the whole conversation, I have got it at home about 45 minutes to an hour. Most of their conversation centers around one question, "Where is the dust?" They talked about how deep the lunar pads sank in, about a half inch. Even the rocket that let them go down slow, the retro-rocket that lets them down slow, they thought it would blow a huge crater, not even an inch deep. Where is all the dust up there? The dust was about a half-inch thick.

Maybe that is a misquote for all I know and you should check here...

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/seminar1.html

I'm not saying a penis or a vagina requires anything maybe, but are they not at least evidence for an Intelligent Creator of biology? Where did they come from? There have been many stories made up that have been proven wrong maybe. What would that have to do with penises and vaginas?

I'm not sure if a Creator would be the only explanation for anything and whether or not there is tangible proof backing anything up comes down to definition maybe. I'm dreaming for all I know and I can prove little to nothing perhaps, but maybe we are in organic observatories and should at least weigh evidence regardless of what can be proven. Maybe whether or not there is tangible proof backing anything up comes down to definition.

There have been many societies and many beings worshipped as deities perhaps, but what would that have to do with whether or not He exists? There actually have been quite of bit of fallen angels worshipped as deities maybe.

Maybe all human beliefs should be subject to scrutiny and taken as proof of little to nothing and we have many things in common.

How many monotheistic religions holding that there is a Creator of the heavens and the earth are there that are not considered Abrahamic? And who's to say there are not indigeneous tribes who truly attempt to honor Him?

[PLAYER57832]

Religion is a crutch, plain and simple, and I for one don't need that. I don't believe in your God because he is unbelievably hypocritical.

Please do not confuse Jay's view of God with God.

[PLAYER57832]

I have never called a religious person an idiot (for being religious; there are plenty of religious people who are, but that's not limited to religion). We can talk about what I see or refuse to see for hours, but you will likely never tell me what it is that I'm missing, which is telling.

That is the effect of your words above, whether you wish to admit it or not.

Perhaps. If it comes out that I think a particular person is stupid in a discussion, then perhaps they can take it to heart. You won't find me making silly generalizations like that.

You have said over and over and over that belief in God lacks evidence, though many of us say otherwise. You also refer to its illogic in ways that go well beyond acknowledgement of feelings, and have referred to believing feelings as opposed to evidence. None of those things is true for anyone who believes, they are only things that non-believers assert are true about believers. It is not much different from when jay asserts that evolution is disproven.

I think we need to go back to the "logic" thread if you wish to take this up again further, but if you were, say to talk about another scientist who things x is true, then you will say "I don't believe this, the evidence just does not seem to be there, etc", but you won't show such utter disdain as you do for people who believe in God. It shows. And, it will impede real conversation with most people who believe, which still encompasses the vast majority of people in the world. This is why it is harmful. I personally believe it is harmful in other ways, as I have asserted (because I believe shutting yourself off from whole ways of thinking is harmful, not to mention that, of course, I do believe harm will come to those who don't believe), but that is just my personnal belief.

[Neoteny]

We can go through this as many times as you want. You keep saying you have evidence, but cannot convey anything other than feelings. I'm seriously open to any alternative, but you have failed to give it. Again and again you say belief is based on evidence, and then again and again you avoid giving it. How am I supposed to be open when all you have done is rebuke me for being closed-minded (despite my requests for something into which I could actually bite).

I, as I have said (it feels like) hundreds of times, do not think a theistic viewpoint is necessarily illogical. I've also mentioned before that I know what it is like to believe. I haven't shut myself off from a whole way of thinking lightly. I know what it's like to think from a theistic viewpoint, and though I do not allow it to be taken seriously from my own perspective anymore, it's not like I'm a babe in the woods. It's not something on which I've lost perspective. I deal with it daily.

I can't help that my tone comes across aggressively, and I don't intend to disparage anyone (most times). I feel like my questions are legitimate. However. I continue to be confused as to how my consistent inquiry as to some sort of positive evidence can be considered so offensive. Really, that's been the majority of my posts on this forum over the last month or so. What is so offensive about that? You just keep telling me that I'm mean. It's a little off-putting.

[PLAYER57832]

We can go through this as many times as you want. You keep saying you have evidence, but cannot convey anything other than feelings. I'm seriously open to any alternative, but you have failed to give it. Again and again you say belief is based on evidence, and then again and again you avoid giving it. How am I supposed to be open when all you have done is rebuke me for being closed-minded (despite my requests for something into which I could actually bite).

Again, I am not asking you to believe. Of course I cannot ask you to believe what you do not see. Instead, it is like being a scientist doing a test on the bottom of the ocean or perhaps some kind of test way outside your field. You cannot see it, don't really and turly understand it. For that reason, you will certainly question it more than tests you do yourself or even just read about with more understanding.

In this case, the evidence is more elusive. Again, so, I would never suggest you should believe, though in the above case, chances are you would at least partially, tentatively accept because you know the person uses scientific principles, etc. Here, it is different, yes. However, it is no less deserving of basic respect.

You cannot prove us wrong. You don't know. You don't know with any certainty that will allow you to convince anyone else.

I, as I have said (it feels like) hundreds of times, do not think a theistic viewpoint is necessarily illogical. I've also mentioned before that I know what it is like to believe. I haven't shut myself off from a whole way of thinking lightly. I know what it's like to think from a theistic viewpoint, and though I do not allow it to be taken seriously from my own perspective anymore, it's not like I'm a babe in the woods. It's not something on which I've lost perspective. I deal with it daily.

Actually, you have said it is illogical and repeatedly said "without evidence". That is the part to which I object.

I can't help that my tone comes across aggressively, and I don't intend to disparage anyone (most times). I feel like my questions are legitimate. However. I continue to be confused as to how my consistent inquiry as to some sort of positive evidence can be considered so offensive. Really, that's been the majority of my posts on this forum over the last month or so. What is so offensive about that? You just keep telling me that I'm mean. It's a little off-putting.

No, I don't consider your request for positive evidence to be offensive, not at all. And I don't believe I have said you are mean (have I?). In fact, if you were, if you were a jerk, I certainly would not bother taking the time to try and explain. It is because I know you to be very intelligent and so forth that it matters a bit to me.

The problem is that I, and others have told you that no, we cannot provide evidence that you can see. I could provide a bit more if we were sitting face to face, but even then, absolute proof.. no. Yet, we say there is evidence. This is certainly not enough to expect you to embrace the belief, but you have gone beyond that.

As for dealign with belief. Belief is different for just about everyone. That is, there are some things that are the same, but some things that are not.

Really, the closest analogy I can draw is to love. You are, I believe, young enough (I believe you have not left school yet, for example.. or only just left) that you probably have not met your "true love". In one sense, you don't really and truly understand what that kind of love is like, in a part may not even really and truly believe (particularly in "darker moments" ) it can happen or that it is worth anything. And, in truth, you may never be lucky enough to really experience that. Yet, because other people talk about it, etc, you also likely know it really does exist, at times. Now that is not quite the same. You could say that you can "see" evidence of that kind of love in the way people relate to each other. Yet, people can fake that. And, if you go to the right church, you will find at least a few people who, well show that "something" is happening. (I don't mean "outward" signs like speaking in tongues or such, I mean something more internal. ) AGain, this is still just an analogy.

Anyway, the main reason it becomes important is not so much because of people like myself. I meet plenty of people who disdain God and belief of any kind. The problem is the growing numbers of people like, I won't say jay, but like widowmakers, and a few others here. People who are quite convinced already that science is "out to get" Christianity, religion. I think that is why it bothers you so much when we talk about belief. And, yes, I DO think it is a "two-way" street. That is, I think that people who believe should fundamentally respect the right, the basic intelligence of people who don't believe. Outside of a forum like this or a direct line of questions I would not get into this kind of discussion. (and likely you would not, either). However, atheists are still in the minority in the world. We need good science to much to risk people turning away because of differences of belief. That is the reason I harp on it. A recent survey showed that roughly 45% of people in the US think evolution is wrong. Two bills recently came up. One, in North Carolina would have actually demanded that teachers examine textbooks for any conflict with religion and teach only from a religiously neutral stance. (not the exact wording, I do have it).

[Lionz]

I've referred to evidence for Him that I shouldn't repeat out of respect for jonesthecurl maybe. : ) Has Neoteny said it was illogical to believe in Him?

[Maugena]

Do you see Player anywhere in here...

How about we try to have a discussion without flaming? What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does? Has life come from non-life once and only once?

Q. What suggests to you that polar bears and butterflies share a common ancestor if something does?

A. DNA is the same structure. To some, this is far more logical than an invisible creator who has never been seen or heard...ever.

DNA is evidence for a common designer and He has been seen and heard perhaps. We should ask ourselves how many people we have to deny as blatant liars if we are to claim He's never been heard maybe.

Q. Has life come from non-life once and only once?

A. Perhaps, Perhaps not.

Is it not possible that life is a rare thing that takes just the right combination for it to start?

Maybe I'm really not sure if anything is impossible.

Do you not think life is incredibly hard to create, since you need to believe that an outside creator must be the only way for it to happen?

Maybe hard is relative and I don't have to believe that depending on definition at least and I'm dreaming for all I know really, but are there not sophisticated relationships among diverse creatures that show underlying intelligent design and forethought at work?

Since there are billions of stars and possibly millions or billions of planets with near infinitely different environments, is it not possible that there are many that life could happen, but happen in a different way?

Maybe I'm not sure if anything is impossible, but can you elaborate?

Or perhaps have happened long ago, and traveled from one of the millions of meteorites and comets that have hit our planet over the course of millions of years?

What suggests to you that meteorites and comets have hit any planet for millions of years?

Now...name one reason this is impossible, and requires a --- snapping his fingers for this to happen. One reason other than we dont yet fully understand it that makes this impossible, or even improbable with any degree of real logic or example.

I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe, but what does evidence actually suggest has happened? What would RNA transcription errors at individual levels do to explain penises and vaginas? Maybe it seems as though they were made for eachother or at least one for the other. Was there a first of each that happened to come about at about same moment in time and they happened to meet up? Would that not be evidence for a Creator? Did more than one of each come to be at about the same moment in time and two or more of them met up after that? Would that not be even more evidence for a Creator? Were there individuals with male organs and female organs who later evolved offspring with only one or the other? What suggests that's the case and what led to offspring with only one or the other if so?

Now, after doing that, explain how a --- is a more probable explanation, let alone a more logical one.

I'm not sure what is referred to for sure maybe, but I might be able to give numerous reasons. Does the second law of thermodynamics not hold that entropy has increased in the Universe as a whole over time? Did particles evolve into atoms and atoms into molecules and molecules into worlds and stars and galaxies and inorganic compounds evolve into living materials and living materials evolve into more and more complex plants and animals and into humans who can intelligently control future evolution and all of that happen without there being a decrease in entropy in the Universe?

Further, since man has created many, many stories and tales throughout history, many of which we know to be untrue, why do you contend that the one you happen to believe, must be true?

Do you have some examples? There is actually mythology that is perverted history perhaps. There is fulfilled prophecy backing Him up that you should look into maybe.

Is it not, simply because, if you accepted it were not true, than everything you believed as a child and an adult, would simply become incorrect, so you hang onto this belief, no matter what?

First of all, I'm not sure what must be true maybe. Secondly, I was not raised in a family you would consider to be a Christian Church going type family and I even got involved with witchcraft at one or more point in life perhaps.

Is that logical?

It would not be by any means maybe.

NOTE: I've replaced stuff with dashes and am misquoting in here maybe. People commonly call Him words that have to do with names of false deities perhaps.

I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe.
I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe.
I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe.
I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe.
I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe.
I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe.
I'm not sure anything is impossible maybe.

Maybe. Perhaps. Hmmm. Well.

YOU SOUND EXTREMELY UNSURE OF YOURSELF.
Just sayin'.

Evolution isn't real!
Blacks, whites, asians, native americans, spaniards, middle easterners, south americans just happened to be created that way and have been that way since the beginning of time! (WHICH WAS 7 DAYS AGO!)

Makes sense to me!

[Lionz]

Maybe I truly know little to nothing and I'm even dreaming for all I know.

Who's claiming that individuals do not bring forth variety with the help of reproduction? Evolution happens depending on definition perhaps, but does everyone share a common ancestor?

[Lionz]

[Snorri1234]

Maybe I truly know little to nothing and I'm even dreaming for all I know.

Best. Troll. Ever.

[nietzsche]

Do I have to come and clean the house all the time?

Logic is a tool. You can't prove anything by pure logic. We are not in 1200 ad anymore and Tomas Aquinas died long ago.

You take a premise, or two, or more, apply logic, and get a conclusion. If by this you get there is a God, it's most likely because your premises were biased from the beginning. Why? easy, our cognitive abilities are only a mean to serve us, and are tools for the satisfaction of our wishes and deepest desires. So, if you as a child were told there was a God or you can't deal with the fact that life has no meaning of his own and death is the end and want and afterlife on the clouds, or with 10,000 virgins, well, your premises are bound to be biased. Btw, Nietzsche himself left a marvelous psychological principle, broadly accepted as a truth since around 100 years now: First, your unconscious wants something, and AFTER you come with a explanation or excuse to make your unconscious want (or belief) valid, and sought after.

I'm not sure if there are any theologists respected as philosophers anymore. If there are, they've probably raped a few children.

[jay_a2j]

Do I have to come and clean the house all the time?

Logic is a tool. You can't prove anything by pure logic. We are not in 1200 ad anymore and Tomas Aquinas died long ago.

You take a premise, or two, or more, apply logic, and get a conclusion. If by this you get there is a God, it's most likely because your premises were biased from the beginning. Why? easy, our cognitive abilities are only a mean to serve us, and are tools for the satisfaction of our wishes and deepest desires. So, if you as a child were told there was a God or you can't deal with the fact that life has no meaning of his own and death is the end and want and afterlife on the clouds, or with 10,000 virgins, well, your premises are bound to be biased. Btw, Nietzsche himself left a marvelous psychological principle, broadly accepted as a truth since around 100 years now: First, your unconscious wants something, and AFTER you come with a explanation or excuse to make your unconscious want (or belief) valid, and sought after.

I'm not sure if there are any theologists respected as philosophers anymore. If they are, they've probably raped a few children.

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

[PLAYER57832]

Do I have to come and clean the house all the time?

Logic is a tool. You can't prove anything by pure logic. We are not in 1200 ad anymore and Tomas Aquinas died long ago.

You take a premise, or two, or more, apply logic, and get a conclusion. If by this you get there is a God, it's most likely because your premises were biased from the beginning. Why? easy, our cognitive abilities are only a mean to serve us, and are tools for the satisfaction of our wishes and deepest desires. So, if you as a child were told there was a God or you can't deal with the fact that life has no meaning of his own and death is the end and want and afterlife on the clouds, or with 10,000 virgins, well, your premises are bound to be biased. Btw, Nietzsche himself left a marvelous psychological principle, broadly accepted as a truth since around 100 years now: First, your unconscious wants something, and AFTER you come with a explanation or excuse to make your unconscious want (or belief) valid, and sought after.

I'm not sure if there are any theologists respected as philosophers anymore. If there are, they've probably raped a few children.

While I don't agree with jay's logic, I do agree with the conclusion. You say we are blinded? We say you are. Neither of us can prove the other wrong through pure logic. As for evidence, those of us who believe in God see evidence (for the most part, some may not), but it is not the type of evidence that can be trotted out, on the internet to show someone else.

So any such debate here will end in stalemate, unless each side accepts that it is a matter of belief and moves on.

However, when you go from saying "I believe x" to saying "anyone who believes y is ...." (insert "crazy, stupid, illogic, misguided, etc.") then you shut yourself off from communication with those who disagree. This is a fault in BOTH sides and hurts all.

[Hensow]

Logic is a tool. You can't prove anything by pure logic. We are not in 1200 ad anymore and Tomas Aquinas died long ago.

you can get more logic proved and if you count math as logic then every therm is proved purely through logic. logic is however usually used to prove if premises X,Y&Z are correct then A is also

[jonesthecurl]

Do I have to come and clean the house all the time?

Logic is a tool. You can't prove anything by pure logic. We are not in 1200 ad anymore and Tomas Aquinas died long ago.

You take a premise, or two, or more, apply logic, and get a conclusion. If by this you get there is a God, it's most likely because your premises were biased from the beginning. Why? easy, our cognitive abilities are only a mean to serve us, and are tools for the satisfaction of our wishes and deepest desires. So, if you as a child were told there was a God or you can't deal with the fact that life has no meaning of his own and death is the end and want and afterlife on the clouds, or with 10,000 virgins, well, your premises are bound to be biased. Btw, Nietzsche himself left a marvelous psychological principle, broadly accepted as a truth since around 100 years now: First, your unconscious wants something, and AFTER you come with a explanation or excuse to make your unconscious want (or belief) valid, and sought after.

I'm not sure if there are any theologists respected as philosophers anymore. If they are, they've probably raped a few children.

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

As he said, your premise is the only thing that leads to your conclusion. And it doesn't show that "God made the universe" unless you also attach the old saw "nothing can come from nothing".

At which point all you have is a version of the Watchmaker argument.

[jay_a2j]

Do I have to come and clean the house all the time?

Logic is a tool. You can't prove anything by pure logic. We are not in 1200 ad anymore and Tomas Aquinas died long ago.

You take a premise, or two, or more, apply logic, and get a conclusion. If by this you get there is a God, it's most likely because your premises were biased from the beginning. Why? easy, our cognitive abilities are only a mean to serve us, and are tools for the satisfaction of our wishes and deepest desires. So, if you as a child were told there was a God or you can't deal with the fact that life has no meaning of his own and death is the end and want and afterlife on the clouds, or with 10,000 virgins, well, your premises are bound to be biased. Btw, Nietzsche himself left a marvelous psychological principle, broadly accepted as a truth since around 100 years now: First, your unconscious wants something, and AFTER you come with a explanation or excuse to make your unconscious want (or belief) valid, and sought after.

I'm not sure if there are any theologists respected as philosophers anymore. If they are, they've probably raped a few children.

The whole logic of it all is based on the given: life can not come from non-life. I hold to the belief that this is a truism. And if indeed it is a truism then a living God must exist and must have always existed. There is no getting around it. Logic takes you back to God.

As he said, your premise is the only thing that leads to your conclusion. And it doesn't show that "God made the universe" unless you also attach the old saw "nothing can come from nothing".

At which point all you have is a version of the Watchmaker argument.

Nothing can come from nothing. So, given that, SOMETHING has always had to exist! In order for things to be here now, logic dictates SOMETHING has always existed. And that something must have the power to create, be living and be eternal.

[jrl332005]

the only way to prove where life came from is to use very complex forulas to find where all the elements and particles came from at the begining of the universe. so for now all of us that believe that science will show us the answer have to sit back and wait. and leave those that believe in a higher power to fight amongst themselves about what that power is. there is no point to this arguement and this point in time.