Evolution and Blood

[Anomalocaris]

It’s possible that Santa’s elves shit candy canes, but it’s not likely. Nor does the existence of candy canes improve the odds of their origins being in the digestive tract of mythical beings.

But I have no doubt elunico13 would suck on wet steaming excrement like it was candy cane if it were represented to him to have passed through the blessed rectum of Jesus the savior.

[elunico13]

Let me make it clearer.
How can anyone account for the UNIVERSAL, IMMATERIAL, and UNCHANGING laws of logic with a world view where only nature exists???

3 categories for worldviews 1) God only exists. 2) God and nature exist 3) Only nature exists.

Atheists can only have worldviews in the 3rd category.
Mine is from the 2nd. I am a Christian Theist.

[Reforged]

Let me make it clearer.
How can anyone account for the UNIVERSAL, IMMATERIAL, and UNCHANGING laws of logic with a world view where only nature exists???

3 categories for worldviews 1) God only exists. 2) God and nature exist 3) Only nature exists.

Atheists can only have worldviews in the 3rd category.
Mine is from the 2nd. I am a Christian Theist.

4) I am God and I orchestrated the entire universe so this event would occur for my own personal amusement. Nature is simply the result of a yogurt I left on the shelf for a few months.

[Voltair]

When I said wasting your time I did not mean it as an attack, not sure if you took at as one but I detected possible sarcasm in your post.

The point is you do NOT prove something by proving that something else does not answer the question. That is what I meant by saying debating evolution is a waste of time because even IF you disprove evolution you still have to PROVE God.

You jumped from my statement of that to asking me to explain laws of logic etc. Again you are performing the triangle/square scenario. Let's say that I could not answer any of your questions about logic, blood, etc. Let's say I had ABSOLUTELY no explanation for these things. How does that automatically make God the cause?

Saying that God is the only explanation requires proof of such an entity even existing. I could say that Minimalist has always existed in some form and created the laws of logic etc. You say that God did all of this but do you have any more proof that God did it vs. an eternal form of Minimalist? You believing God did it doesn't really prove anything other than that you believe God did it.

Again, you do not increase the likelihood or validity of God by simply asking other people for their alternative explanation. Let me give another example:

Let's say that we didn't understand how light worked. You flip on a light switch and I tell you "What happens is when you flip that switch magical fairies from the land of Gobulon come and feed their energy into the light bulb causing it to shine".

Now let's say you tell me "How do you know the fairies did it?" And I ask you what alternative explanation you have. If you do not have an alternative explanation does that mean that it is automatically the fairies from Globulon?

::

That example may have seemed ridiculous but that is exactly what is going on when you move from trying to provide evidence for your claims to simply trying to make others explain it. It is not the job of the atheist to explain every single facet of reality just because they don't believe in a God.

Again the point is not about what can others prove about alternative explanations the point is what can you PROVE about God? If you cannot prove anything about God then moving to simply try and discredit other people's position STILL DOESN'T MAKE GOD MORE LIKELY. If you want to prove GOD you need to stick with what you see as evidence for GOD. Do not jump to trying to just attack other people's position when you have not provided ample support for your own. Here are some steps I would recommend in proving it:

1) Establish what you mean when you say "God" that word can mean different things to different people

2) Establish what you believe is proof for this beings existence

3) Explain how this proof actually proves God and is not simply you imposing your own views on it. As in does the evidence some how prove God or is it just that it is POSSIBLY God?

4) If you manage to get here then you would talk about your proof for what you believe the will of this said God is which in your case would be the Bible

::

Now I can already tell you that you will not satisfy people's requirements for those above steps here. I could be wrong but you would be the first person to come here to do that so I would be surprised. Not trying to be insulting just stating how I see things.

However if you do follow that format above or something similar this discussion will turn into a discussion instead of chasing a million rabbits down a million different rabbit holes and getting absolutely nowhere.

Who is God:
The God revealed in Genesis thru Revelation from the bible. If you replace his name with another than he is not what the bible refers to as God. If I said Kermit the frog gave birth to you. You would know I'm purposely misidentifying your own mother. Always remember the creator revealed in Genesis thru revelation.

I used laws of logic to demonstrate that without starting with the God of the bible than in order for you to make sense of your worldview (and everybody has one) ,you have to borrow from the laws of logic created by the God of the bible. You can't make sense of even the questions you asked of me with out that presupposition.

3 categories for worldviews are 1) God only 2) Nature and God exist or 3) Only nature exists. Atheists can only have worldviews in the 3rd category.

I was told here that laws of logic are not laws but just cause and effect. Law definition - A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority. I'm saying the laws of logic did not evolve and exist because the authority of God.

If laws are just cause and effect than many causes and effects have evolved. Laws of logic haven't or we couldn't depend on them for science or even correcting our own way of thinking.

So how does anyone account for the UNIVERSAL, IMMATERIAL and UNCHANGING laws of logic in only a material world???

You keep going back to the idea that if someone can't answer all of these questions or explain how it makes God more valid. Let me go ahead and tell you that NO ONE is going to be able to tell you exactly why things are the way that they are. Now you may go "See that makes God the only valid answer". However, you still have not demonstrated that God even exists so without doing that he is NOT an explanation.

As far as the Bible stating that God is the creator that means very little again because you have to prove that the Bible is a reliable source. Again someone else's failure to explain something does not make your idea more likely. In fact if you cannot demonstrate one piece of reliable evidence that a thing such as a "god" even exists then it makes it not even a likely possibility.

Again I am not understanding why you think that Atheists inability to demonstrate for you the exact reason for the way things work gives God more credibility. You are asking us to take with ZERO PROVEN EVIDENCE that there is a being that has always existed, is all knowing, all powerful, etc and who decided to create this entire universe.

You have defined this being using a religious text but have so far not demonstrated why we should accept the religious text nor demonstrated even outside of this text that the concept of deity is anything more than a construct of the mind. I do not see how simply saying God did it answers the question since you are just making a statement not actually proving anything. The question boils down to what can be proven and what cannot be proven.

Can you prove that there is not some ethereal invisible fairy dancing on your bed right now? I can define this fairy in such a way to where you can't possibly disprove it but I can't possibly prove it either. Where does that leave us? While the fairy is possible in light of no reliable evidence we can safely conclude that for all purposes the fairy doesn't exist (see Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon in My Garage).

If you cannot demonstrate that God exists but merely make assertions than it does not matter whether or not an atheist can even explain gravity. God still has not been proven, therefore God is NOT an explanation that we can accept with any sense of certainty. I freely admit that the concept of deity is POSSIBLE as in by definition it is not impossible. However it still has yet to be PROVEN. Until deity can be proven it explains nothing.

I know that this post may sound strong but I am not trying to insult you. I am not going to bother trying to answer every single question a theist has about reality. It is strange to me that someone would demand that an atheist be able to explain everything or it somehow makes God more likely.

If you cannot prove God based on his own merits without jumping down other peoples throats and saying "But you can't explain it any other way!" then you have no evidence. Why should I accept God as the answer when he hasn't been demonstrated more than an invisible dragon or an invisible fairy? Again I am going to ask you can you PROVE with reasonable certainty that there is a God. If you cannot do so then again your explanation should not be accepted as valid. Is God possible? Sure it is but so are gnomes, fairies, unicorns, mages, wizards, alternate dimensions etc.

You also mentioned that I have to borrow from laws of logic. Actually if I am not mistaken Christianity is borrowing from the Greeks when they talk about "laws of logic" etc. Judaism did not invent nor popularize the idea of logic so I am not borrowing anything as the study of logic was not founded in Judaism OR Christianity. Secondly when we talk about the "laws of logic" we are labeling something we see in our existence. The "law of logic" isn't anything but our own description of what we see. As in a dog is not a fish, a bird, and a dog I.E. the law of non-contradiction.

The law of non-contradiction isn't some sacred "law" it is just how things in this universe seem to work. I am not borrowing from God to acknowledge that things work in a certain way. You have not proven that God is the source of logic. Saying that the Bible says God is the source of logic only proves that... well... that the Bible says that. You still have to prove the Bible is a reliable source for such matters. Saying that "God wrote it" doesn't prove anything and is yet again just a statement.

Again, what can you prove? Asking me what I can prove is irrelevant since you are the one claiming to know that

A) That there is a God
B) Logic comes from God
C) There is no other explanation other than God
D) The Bible is God's word

So far I have seen NO PROOF for any of these assumptions that you make. In light of no proof I am not going to accept any of those four points. Before you start asking someone else to explain everything about their worldview you need to validate your own. Atheists aren't claiming to understand nor have an explanation for everything. However Christianity is claiming that God is such an explanation. If you are making the claim then you need to back it up.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me make it clearer.
How can anyone account for the UNIVERSAL, IMMATERIAL, and UNCHANGING laws of logic with a world view where only nature exists???

3 categories for worldviews 1) God only exists. 2) God and nature exist 3) Only nature exists.

Atheists can only have worldviews in the 3rd category.
Mine is from the 2nd. I am a Christian Theist.

What is it, precisely, that you think needs accounting for, and how, precisely, does god account for whatever that is? The "universal, immaterial, and unchanging" laws of logic are an accounting of the way our very natural world seems to behave, filtered by our very unique perspective of it, and then refined over time (so much for unchanging eh) when complications arise. What any of this has to do with a god is beyond me. I just can't wait to see how you draw back the curtain on the mysteries of the cosmos in your next post.

Funny little bug of the mind, pops up everywhere, from filling our blind spots to "remembering" things that never happened. In the absence of any actual answer, explanation, or information, our minds tend to cling to almost anything to fill that gap. Yours seems to have latched onto the term "god". Well, that's unfortunate, but common. This argument is in a similar state, unfortunate and common.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Atheists can only have worldviews in the 3rd category.
3 categories for worldviews 1) God only exists. 2) God and nature exist 3) Only nature exists.

Wrong. Those three positions are all positive claims and attract the burden of proof (look it up)


There is a fourth view: I do not believe in god(s),which is not a claim and attracts no burden of proof.. That is my position,that of most atheist on this forum and of every atheist I know personally. This position is called 'agnostic atheism' (look it up)

I could no care less about your personal superstitions or your arrogant and dogmatic personal certitude. Provide some credible evidence for your claims or stop wasting my time and fuck off.

[genkaus]

How can anyone account for the UNIVERSAL, IMMATERIAL, and UNCHANGING laws of logic with a world view where only nature exists???

Easy.

Nature is universal - therefore logic, which describes the attributes of nature, is universal as well.

Nature is material - our awareness of it is not. Therefore, the laws of logic, which are a result of our awareness of what nature is and how it works - are immaterial.

The way nature works is unchanging - therefore our description of how it works, i.e. the laws of logic - are unchanging as well.

By the way, for the short time I've been absent from this discussion you must have been hauling ass - running around with those goalposts all around the place. Last I asked, you were supposed to give evidence as to why the blood's clotting system could not have evolved from single to multiple steps and why other parts of the current system not have performed any other function which was later opted for clotting. I see no answer for that and here you are talking about logic and god - something that has little to do with blood clotting.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's because there are no arguments, just a bullet point list. The people that circulate the shit that's being regurgitated here positively rely on the readers ignorance of the subject matter to begin with.

[Reforged]

I can't help but think my theory wasn't given enough thought.

[fuckass365]

I'm not wading through 6 pages of bullshit to see if a similar argument has been made so here it is.

By asserting that a god created the universe you have done nothing but make a redundant statement. If you've "answered" the question of the origin of the universe using your god, then who created your god and who created the creator of your god and so on and so forth. If you believe that everything has been created, than every creator would have had to have been created. "If you say god has always existed, why not save a step and say the universe has always existed."