Origin of Articles

[Angrboda]

Evolution isn't a belief system. Also, how do any of the answers given show that evolution is illogical? Actually back up your statements.

The laws of logic appear unchanging to us because we all are the same species, therefore we will think in the same, or a similar way.

Because we are the same species we now all have the same brain? Don't think so... If laws of logic depended on each other's brain then we could each have our own laws of logic. They wouldn't be laws would they? They wouldn't be universal. They exist outside of our brains....

Now wait just a cotton picking minute. How do you know what's "outside of our brains" independent of what's inside your brain, which has been asserted to be the source of the laws of logic?

Wait. Are you Noah? Noah? No, wrong guy. Are you God? Is this the Lord? Not funny... er, I mean not funny to those unbelievers over there! Them, Lord, them!


(Actually, I have a hunch the laws of logic do not operate in this person's brain, or at least, not laws which we would recognize as logic. Maybe he's a hard core dialetheist...)

[Mister Agenda]

Because we are the same species we now all have the same brain?

We don't have the exact same brains, but they are very similar.

Don't think so... If laws of logic depended on each other's brain then we could each have our own laws of logic.

You have not demonstrated that our brains are so different that we should expect that to be the case.

They wouldn't be laws would they? They wouldn't be universal. They exist outside of our brains. AND we use laws of logic to CORRECT our ways of thinking.

What we call 'laws' are descriptions of ways in which the universe is very consistent.

Could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans came along???

I don't see how. Why do you ask?

Well if we all thought like you I could just say God is true and "that's how things are".

Except that pointing at nothing and saying 'that's how things are' is very different from pointing at many things and noting they seem to follow a rule, and not being able to find any exceptions to those rules, being willing to change your mind if any exceptions are ever found, and THEN saying 'that's how things are'.

You're sidestepping the question.

No he isn't. At all.

Laws aren't our description of the world. Many people describe the world in different ways. i.e. evolutionists and creationists.

Laws are a particular kind of description of our world.

Laws of logic often CORRECT our ways of thinking. Allow logic to do its work for you LOL!

How about you demonstrate how the 'laws of logic' apply in this case? Perhaps you could form a syllogism, or point out a fallacy one of us is committing.

So I logically explained they're not personal or they wouldn't be universal. So how do you account for them in an evolutionistic view?

Evolution selects for organisms well-adapted to their environment. An organism that depends on thinking as its main tool of survival but can't manage simple logic would be at a disadvantage in the struggle to survive.

Laws of logic not universal anymore? Human creations!?!?
If that's the case then you should be able to logically answer this simple question.

Could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans came along???

No. What do you think that proves?

[DeistPaladin]

I think it says much about Christianity that the closest apologists can come to defending their beliefs are abstract attempts at logical arguments like these. I'm not saying logical arguments have no place in any presentation of proof but if there's no hard evidence offered, at best you have an untested hypothesis. This is not "proof" and certainly falls short of the kind of extraordinary evidence required by the proportionally extraordinary claims.

In the first Star Wars movie that came out (IV: A New Hope), Darth Vader deals with a skeptical admiral that scoffs at his religious beliefs. Darth Vader then offers the Ontological argument for the Force ...or was it the Teleological?

Oh wait, my mistake. Instead of spouting philoso-babble, he offered a compelling demonstration consistent with his religious beliefs in a way that couldn't be confused with a natural occurrence or coincidence. I guarantee that were something like this to happen in real life, not a single admiral would have left that room unconvinced.

Why don't the Christians perform miracles of faith that the NT promised would be possible? I'm not asking them to drink poison or handle snakes. Why not do something less dangerous and more productive like a healing demonstration in front of medical peer review as a repeatable experiment? Or perhaps you could cure madness by casting out a demon or two? If I could put in a special request, how about healing Steven Hawking?

If all you have to offer is philoso-babble, let me start by affirming who has the burden of proof. It's NOT my responsibility to know everything or to explain the entire universe to you, down to the abstract questions like why there are laws of logic or what morality is. It's YOUR responsibility to prove that not only A god exists but that YOUR god exists.

[elunico13]

I think it says much about Christianity that the closest apologists can come to defending their beliefs are abstract attempts at logical arguments like these. I'm not saying logical arguments have no place in any presentation of proof but if there's no hard evidence offered, at best you have an untested hypothesis. This is not "proof" and certainly falls short of the kind of extraordinary evidence required by the proportionally extraordinary claims.

In the first Star Wars movie that came out (IV: A New Hope), Darth Vader deals with a skeptical admiral that scoffs at his religious beliefs. Darth Vader then offers the Ontological argument for the Force ...or was it the Teleological?

Oh wait, my mistake. Instead of spouting philoso-babble, he offered a compelling demonstration consistent with his religious beliefs in a way that couldn't be confused with a natural occurrence or coincidence. I guarantee that were something like this to happen in real life, not a single admiral would have left that room unconvinced.

Why don't the Christians perform miracles of faith that the NT promised would be possible? I'm not asking them to drink poison or handle snakes. Why not do something less dangerous and more productive like a healing demonstration in front of medical peer review as a repeatable experiment? Or perhaps you could cure madness by casting out a demon or two? If I could put in a special request, how about healing Steven Hawking?

If all you have to offer is philoso-babble, let me start by affirming who has the burden of proof. It's NOT my responsibility to know everything or to explain the entire universe to you, down to the abstract questions like why there are laws of logic or what morality is. It's YOUR responsibility to prove that not only A god exists but that YOUR god exists.

Healings still happen and doctors can't believe it, but it's written off as something not figured out yet.

Besides seeing isn't believing. The Bible tells us people doubted when they saw Jesus resurrected. Plus when you all see creation you believe random events brought us to where we are now. You don't see it as a creation from the Biblical God.

Jesus even said even if one was brought back from the dead they still wouldn't believe.

You would have to turn to God and from sin in repentance and put your faith in Christ to know what I'm talking about.

[LastPoet]

Healings still happen and doctors can't believe it, but it's written off as something not figured out yet.

And that is the apropriate way of going about it, else would be the old argumetum ad ignorantium. Perhaps there is a hidden way in those 'misterious' healings that may provide us with the cure. By using science, not some ancient story!

Besides seeing isn't believing. The Bible tells us people doubted when they saw Jesus resurrected. Plus when you all see creation you believe random events brought us to where we are now. You don't see it as a creation from the Biblical God.

Somebody told you since a young age about a god, that wrote a book (a poorly written book at that). When you look at reality, it comes out as it is, not how you wanted it to be.

Jesus even said even if one was brought back from the dead they still wouldn't believe.

It would be needed for your jesus to have any evidence for his existence, let alone resurection.

You would have to turn to God and from sin in repentance and put your faith in Christ to know what I'm talking about.

In other words, you need to surrender your intelect, your mind, the only thing that is truly yours to a fantasy, poorly evidenced 2000-ish story. That's precious.

[DeistPaladin]

Healings still happen and doctors can't believe it, but it's written off as something not figured out yet.

Are you talking about the placebo effect? Doctors are studying it to better understand how and why it works. We don't yet fully understand it but when we do, like all other mysteries unraveled by science, it will doubtless turn out to be something non-magical.

Besides seeing isn't believing. The Bible tells us...

Sorry, please continue.

...people doubted when they saw Jesus resurrected.

Which only serves to make the disciples (Thomas, in this case) look like two-dimensional dunces. But it has served its purpose, the story of non-belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence. It has programmed you to write off skepticism as somehow stubborn or irrational.

Plus when you all see creation you believe random events brought us to where we are now. You don't see it as a creation from the Biblical God.

Putting aside that evolution isn't random, I reject the Genesis creation myth for, among many other reasons, the order of events is completely wrong. Day is created on day 1, a sky-dome on day 2, plants on day 3, the sun and stars on day 4. It may come as a surprise to you but many stars are much older than our earth and plants didn't come along until well after our sun was born.

Jesus even said even if one was brought back from the dead they still wouldn't believe.

Ow, my head hurts from the stupid. Do you seriously believe that?

You would have to turn to God and from sin in repentance and put your faith in Christ to know what I'm talking about.

I have to believe in order to understand? I must understand something first before I can be asked to believe it. Otherwise, how can I know what it is I'm to believe?

This is perhaps the dumbest argument ever put forward by a Christian, and that's saying a lot. This argument not only proposes an absurdity (outlined above) and not only rejects the proper placement of the burden of proof but it also makes normal skepticism of claims (that both you and I practice in all other areas of life) look somehow like a handicap.

[Mister Agenda]

Being consistently rational may be one of the hardest things in the world. I doubt anyone can really do it, we all have our lapses. I suppose the shared value of rational skeptics is that the effort is worth making.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

You would have to turn to God and from sin in repentance and put your faith in Christ to know what I'm talking about.

Nonsense. The Lord has hardened the hearts of those who are not of the elect so that they may be His objects of wrath on the day of judgment. Why don't you read the Bible instead of making up your own religion? Damn phony Christians!

Here you go, bold emphasis mine:

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

...just like with the Egyptian ruler in the book of Exodus. Sometimes our loving Lord has a bit of pent up rage that he needs to let loose and for that he has his objects of wrath.

"Better you than me", I say to the heathens.

2Thes 2:10-14 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So we can see the game is rigged from the get-go. Jesus plays with loaded dice. And to you unsaved trash, I can only quote the Scarecrow from "The Wiz", "You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game."

Hey, far be it from me to understand how Yahweh gets his kicks. Maybe it's because he hasn't gotten laid in 2000 years and he has a little sexual frustration to sublimate into his sadistic need to torture you heathens. Bad move for the ancient Hebrews when they took away his wife and went completely monotheistic.

Praise the sweet name of Jesus!

[elunico13]

Healings still happen and doctors can't believe it, but it's written off as something not figured out yet.

Are you talking about the placebo effect? Doctors are studying it to better understand how and why it works. We don't yet fully understand it but when we do, like all other mysteries unraveled by science, it will doubtless turn out to be something non-magical.

Besides seeing isn't believing. The Bible tells us...

Sorry, please continue.

...people doubted when they saw Jesus resurrected.

Which only serves to make the disciples (Thomas, in this case) look like two-dimensional dunces. But it has served its purpose, the story of non-belief even in the face of overwhelming evidence. It has programmed you to write off skepticism as somehow stubborn or irrational.

Plus when you all see creation you believe random events brought us to where we are now. You don't see it as a creation from the Biblical God.

Putting aside that evolution isn't random, I reject the Genesis creation myth for, among many other reasons, the order of events is completely wrong. Day is created on day 1, a sky-dome on day 2, plants on day 3, the sun and stars on day 4. It may come as a surprise to you but many stars are much older than our earth and plants didn't come along until well after our sun was born.

Jesus even said even if one was brought back from the dead they still wouldn't believe.

Ow, my head hurts from the stupid. Do you seriously believe that?

You would have to turn to God and from sin in repentance and put your faith in Christ to know what I'm talking about.

I have to believe in order to understand? I must understand something first before I can be asked to believe it. Otherwise, how can I know what it is I'm to believe?

This is perhaps the dumbest argument ever put forward by a Christian, and that's saying a lot. This argument not only proposes an absurdity (outlined above) and not only rejects the proper placement of the burden of proof but it also makes normal skepticism of claims (that both you and I practice in all other areas of life) look somehow like a handicap.

Man for a secomd I thought I was talking to someone about 6000 years old when creation begun. LOL!

---

You would have to turn to God and from sin in repentance and put your faith in Christ to know what I'm talking about.

Nonsense. The Lord has hardened the hearts of those who are not of the elect so that they may be His objects of wrath on the day of judgment. Why don't you read the Bible instead of making up your own religion? Damn phony Christians!

Here you go, bold emphasis mine:

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

...just like with the Egyptian ruler in the book of Exodus. Sometimes our loving Lord has a bit of pent up rage that he needs to let loose and for that he has his objects of wrath.

"Better you than me", I say to the heathens.

2Thes 2:10-14 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

So we can see the game is rigged from the get-go. Jesus plays with loaded dice. And to you unsaved trash, I can only quote the Scarecrow from "The Wiz", "You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game."

Hey, far be it from me to understand how Yahweh gets his kicks. Maybe it's because he hasn't gotten laid in 2000 years and he has a little sexual frustration to sublimate into his sadistic need to torture you heathens. Bad move for the ancient Hebrews when they took away his wife and went completely monotheistic.

Praise the sweet name of Jesus!

I like the Bible preachin atheist LOL!
And KJV too! Right on!

"Oh well I guess I'm a vessel of wrath and can't be understanding of the truth."

Many people in worse situations than you have been saved by the grace of God.

---

Laws of logic not universal anymore? Human creations!?!?
If that's the case then you should be able to logically answer this simple question.

Could the universe have existed and not existed at the same time and in the same way before humans came along???

No. What do you think that proves?
[/quote]

What this proves is Logic is not a creation from humans nor the way they think. That was a question dealing with the law of non contradiction. NO, is the correct answer!

But completely contradicts any belief that the Biblical God does not exist. No evolutionist can account for laws of logic which is the way God thinks and has always been the case even before creation.

If you had said yes than you couldn't even know you existed its a complete contradiction.

Do you still think you can account for logic existing before humans???

[Epimethean]

"Dr. Heisenberg, one of the lab subjects has broken free and would like a moment of your time to discuss the nature of existence."










"I'm sorry, but we seem to be on the blocked number list."