(November 19, 2016 at 3:35 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 3:06 pm)The Joker Wrote: I am sorry but there really isn't anything I can do about your ignorance.

Okey dokey then.  Since I'm not looking to just fill in my ignorance with just any old nonsense you're right, you've got nothing for me.  But it was nice hearing you say it.

Well you are an ignostic.

(November 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Burden of proof is total legalistic bs.  What about preponderance of evidence for the most logical conclusion?

Because you have no evidence for any invisible sky-daddies and your use of logic normally proceeds from the premise that god did x therefore...... 

When you have evidence, give us a call.

(November 19, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Burden of proof is total legalistic bs.  What about preponderance of evidence for the most logical conclusion?

Because you have no evidence for any invisible sky-daddies and your use of logic normally proceeds from the premise that god did x therefore...... 

When you have evidence, give us a call.

The cosmological argument is "a" evidence for God.

(November 19, 2016 at 3:42 pm)The Joker Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Because you have no evidence for any invisible sky-daddies and your use of logic normally proceeds from the premise that god did x therefore...... 

When you have evidence, give us a call.

The cosmological argument is "a" evidence for God.

Rubbish.

A logical argument is not evidence for the existence of a god.

You can't 'logic' something into existence.

The CA commits several fallacies that make it invalid.

Usually, depending on the version of the CA, these fallacies are:

Affirming the consequent.
Fallacy of composition.
Fallacy of equivocation.

Also failure to establish anything at all about the God; even that it is intelligent. Let alone a particular character in a story book. It's a pathetic attempt to reduce all of physics down to a domino rally out of pure ignorance/dishonesty.

I don't give a fuck if "God did it" anyway. Good for him.

(November 19, 2016 at 2:19 pm)houseofcantor Wrote: The burden of Proof is on the atheist to provide proof of Naturalistic Evolution that we came into existence by an accident.

Well, there's me, convinced that the OP doesn't know the meaning of any of the words he just posted. I remember seeing this video one time where there was this happy, trippy music with stars and galaxies floating by when all of a sudden this voice screams "this is not evolution!" I lol'd. In fact, I just lol'd again.
[/quote]



Long video. A little dated but makes some good points. Personally I do not see evidence for macro evolution in the fossil record.
 
Have no problem following the truth wherever it is found.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKQ-OmeNfFw





[/quote]

(November 19, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Burden of proof is total legalistic bs.  What about preponderance of evidence for the most logical conclusion?

Because you have no evidence for any invisible sky-daddies and your use of logic normally proceeds from the premise that god did x therefore...... 

When you have evidence, give us a call.

Min, the fact that you and I are here and have the cognitive reasoning function and conscious self awareness is some evidence.

You are aware of several more "arguments" for the existence of God. For me the Bible, taken in it's entirety, especially the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies is overwhelming evidence.

That said, I could never hope to appeal to your intellect on this basis. Absolutely no offense meant but your bias truly clouds your judgment in this arena my friend.

(November 19, 2016 at 4:54 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKQ-OmeNfFw

I assume that's the point you're trying to make, and no. Ain't watching no Kent Hovind vid. Of course he thinks it's stupid, he has never evolved.

(November 19, 2016 at 5:04 pm)houseofcantor Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 4:54 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKQ-OmeNfFw

I assume that's the point you're trying to make, and no. Ain't watching no Kent Hovind vid. Of course he thinks it's stupid, he has never evolved.  

Since we started with finches and the finches stayed finches, isn’t this just an example of variety within a kind?

(November 19, 2016 at 5:00 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote:

(November 19, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Because you have no evidence for any invisible sky-daddies and your use of logic normally proceeds from the premise that god did x therefore...... 

When you have evidence, give us a call.

Min, the fact that you and I are here and have the cognitive reasoning function and conscious self awareness is some evidence.

You are aware of several more "arguments" for the existence of God. For me the Bible, taken in it's entirety, especially the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies is overwhelming evidence.

That said, I could never hope to appeal to your intellect on this basis. Absolutely no offense meant but your bias truly clouds your judgment in this arena my friend.

Scientific evidence.

Why?

Because science is more reliable and trustworthy. And because it will ultimately win out over more hearts and minds than religion,thus making the latter obsolete.

Get with the times. Stop living in the past. Study it, but don't revere it more than the present.