My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[JosephBowie]

In reality, there is massive evidence for God.

Massive evidence which you, Foghorn, have yet to actually introduce into this argument.

[Truth Matters]

In reality, there is massive evidence for God.

Massive evidence which you, Foghorn, have yet to actually introduce into this argument.

OK, see below. Now where is your evidence and arguments to justify your Atheist BELIEF? None of you Atheists have introduced any. Why do you believe it?

Here is a very cursory outline of some of the best evidences for God. The full arguments and evidences are not NOT adequately explained here. This is a very compacted outline I put together - not comprehensive.

Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.


Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.

Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

---

Pap, I'm not even going to waste my time with someone who combines evolution denial with conspiracy-theorist style speech. He obviously has multiple grudges and sounds ridiculous enough on his own without me wasting my work and socializing time on his bullshit.

Besides, I'd rather he set the goalposts in his field of bullshit. Then when I finally go to punt, I'll use his head for the ball.

For someone so impotent to defend your silly belief, you sure do bluster well.

I'de be more impressed if you could provide arguments and evidence to justify your silly beliefs.

[JosephBowie]

Massive evidence which you, Foghorn, have yet to actually introduce into this argument.

OK, see below. Now where is your evidence and arguments to justify your Atheist BELIEF? None of you Atheists have introduced any. Why do you believe it?

Here is a very cursory outline of some of the best evidences for God. The full arguments and evidences are not NOT adequately explained here. This is a very compacted outline I put together - not comprehensive.

Contingency – God is the best explanation for why something exists rather than nothing? Something cannot begin from nothing without a cause. Therefore, Something necessarily self-exists. Self-existence is logically necessary. A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.


Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul.
Chemicals have no moral duties.

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.

Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

Not sure what everyone else thinks, but that was just an extremely drawn out version of the old "God exists because he has to" argument.

Now as for why we believe science, it all comes down to the individual. We believe it because it's what makes sense to us, much like why everyone else believes things. You believe what makes sense to you.

The difference between us and you, however, is that we actually make an effort to find out why we're right other than "Because it is."

[Truth Matters]

{Not sure what everyone else thinks, but that was just an extremely drawn out version of the old "God exists because he has to" argument.}

Obviously, you have no clue what these arguments are about. You may want to engage them.

{Now as for why we believe science....}

Don't tell me you believe in science. I just gave you several evidences directly grounded in science. I am arguing from science.
Atheism is not science, nor is it scientific. It's not even rational when taken seriously in reason.

{The difference between us and you, however, is that we actually make an effort to find out why we're right other than "Because it is."}

Where have I argued 'because it is'? I am the one taking science and evidence seriously. Watch these Atheist bozo's deflect, evade and refuse to engage the evidence and arguments - just like you did.

Atheism is a silly belief.
Science is not Atheism.

[popeyespappy]

Atheism is a silly belief.

I am an agnostic atheist. I am agnostic because I don’t know if some vaguely defined god exists or not. I am atheist because I have yet to see any evidence for or reason to believe that some god exists. Given that everything humans have ever been able to explain with any degree of certainty has a naturalistic explanation I have no reason to believe any supernatural explanations are necessary. Your positive claims that god did it are unsupported so I reject them. Evolution accounts for my existence. No god required. Nothing silly about it.

Did you ever answer my specific evolutionary claim that humans and the other primates share a common ancestor, and that proof of this can be found in the retroviral insertions in our DNA?

Science is not Atheism.

Well at least we can agree on that. Atheism is nothing more or nothing less than a lack of belief in god.

[Zen Badger]

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Outside of the bible, where is this recorded?

---

Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe.
Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.

I think this single statement show your inability to to reason more than anything else.

Cannot prove gravity without arguing in circles?

You sir, have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

[Anomalocaris]

Guys, you are talking to a (presumably) walking caricature of a cartoon caricature of an awfully dumb bird.

[Zen Badger]

Guys, you are talking to a (presumably) walking caricature of a cartoon caricature of an awfully dumb bird.

A character that incidentally is loud mouthed, opinionated, obnoxious and ill informed.

Co-incidence much?

[Kirbmarc]

A Universe from Self –creation is logically impossible. Our Universe began to exist. Our Universe is not self-existent. Our Universe requires a causally antecedent agency to explain it’s existence. God does not – God has no beginning, but self-exists as prime.

This is a very infamous logical fallacy, and has been shown to be groundless since the times of Immanuel Kant.

The Universe (defined as "everything that existed or exists" , not merely our universe: there could be other universes, including one that caused our universe to exist) has a beginning, but this beginning is also the beginning of existance.

Asking what existed before existance is pointless, just like asking what lies north of the North Pole.

Cosmological – Absolute beginning confirmed by Big Bang cosmology requires a causal agency. Cause of Physical Universe cannot itself be Physical. Must be non-physical, space-less, timeless and willful to cause Physical Universe from Physical Nothingness.

There is no reason to believe that the the cause of our physical universe must be not physical, nor that it must be willful. Indeed, there are many hypothesis about the origins of our universe, and do not require an intelligent programmer.

(By the way, "nothingness" doesn't exist, what exists is vacuum, a very different thing)

Design: Specified, ordered and integrated interdependencies aimed towards a third-purpose design objectives clearly infer intelligent agency. ‘Chance’ events within limited time-frames cannot rationally account for Design achievements. No sufficient Naturalistic mechanisms or explanations. Intelligent purpose is far more plausible explanation. Origin of radically sophisticated DNA information (software) driving molecular highly sophisticated molecular machines within each cell. Also, the design inference from irreducible complexity cannot and certainly has not been adequately explained.

The proposed evidence for irreducible complexity has been repeatedly refuted. Even Michael Behe (the man eho propsed the "irreducible complexity" hypothesis) has recently admitted that his concept of irreducible complexity is vague, ill-defined and not supported by any meaningful evidence.

You also assume a purpose for evolution, and from that you infer a design. There is no evidence that evolution has a purpose (there is, however, a staggering amount of evidence for thr lack of design in evolution)

You also conveniently forget that evolution is not based on random "chance" alone. It's based on the survival of what managed to duplicate itself.

Precision FINELY TUNED constants and quantities present in initial conditions of the Universe to within infinitesimally narrow ranges to permit life. Universe is precision balanced on razor’s edge. This is virtual mathematical proof of intent – a function of mind – is necessary to explain these precision orderings.

The Finely Tuned universe is another well-known logical fallacy. Actually a) the range is not "infinitesimally narrow" (a change as large as 25% of the constants still produces stars and therefore carbon-based life) and b) life adapted to the universe, not vice-versa.

Ontological argument – God is a metaphysically necessary Being. Since God’s attributes are metaphysically possible, and all metaphysical possibilities must also be actual if possible, God must be actual.

Have you ever read Kant's analysis of the classical proofs for the existance of god? It's been out for a while.

Anyway, the ontological argument is probably the weakest proof of them all. By claiming that all methaphysical possibilities must be actual, it implicitly assumes that god has to exist to prove that it exists.

Ten thousand dollars in my pocket are methaphysically possible, but sadly they are not actual.

Intelligence in Nature: Intelligence, order and reason and information all from Nothingness?

There is no meaningful evidence of intelligence in nature.

Spiritual instinct of man: Evolved to connect with something not actual?

There are many excellent hypotheses about the evolutionary origins of religion. Religious behavior has alos been observed in chimpanzee and bonobos. I suggest thst you read "Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion" by Barbara King.

Free-will: Chemical causation is not free-will. Agency requires a soul. Chemicals have no moral duties.

You assume that "free will" exists as something independent from the physical world. Actually what you call "soul" is a high-level function of the brain.

Moreover, even if such a thing existed, it still wouldn't prove the existance of an intelligent creator.

Moral Truth / Apprehension of Objective moral truth. Is rape really wrong or just an illusion? Is rape just a natural chemical byproduct caused by electrochemical activity (Atheism) – or an act of will.

It's both. What you call "personality" and "will" are also byproducts of electrochemical activity. They are, however, high level byproducts: this means that the relation between electrochemical activity and "will" is not one of a brute "one on one" determinism.

"Personalities" are complex bundles of psychological features, that include the belief of the individual that he can control his actions (what you may call "free will"). "Free will" is never absolutely free, it's always free in relation to what you are.

Rape is morally wrong because it causes suffering (both physical and psychological) in its victims. Secular morality is not interested in casting judgements about the "nature" of a rapist, but in reducing and possibly preventing suffering (by preventing rapes if possible and by taking action against a rapist to prevent him from harming more victims).

Massive Historical evidences of witnessed Miracles, visions, fulfilled prophecies,.

There is no clear, meaningful evidence of miracles and visions. All we have is fragmentary, often contradictory hearsay.

Also, the same kind of flawed evidence is available for religions other than Christianity (google "hindu miracles"), for ufo abductions, for "curses" and superstition in general, for every conspiracy theory, etc. yet a) they often contradict each other, so they can't all be true b) you probably don't accept many of them.

The prophecies are always vague enough to be considered "fulfilled" in many different occasions. Many of them are also forged after the fact "predicted".

Personal experiences: Ubiquitous NDE’s, supernatural phenomena

See my previous comment about ufo abductions and conspiracy theories.

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Hearsay, and from a single, partisan source.

Absolute failure of Naturalism to explain a Finely tuned Universe, Finite Universe, Sentience, Rational truth and natural order, Moral Law (morality), intuition, intention, intelligence, purpose, free-will…

You need a thorough update on the most recent developments of neurosciences, psychology, cosmology and philosophy. I'd suggest that you start by reading the "Critique of Pure Reason" by Immanuel Kant.

Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe. Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.

The law of gravity is part of a theory that explains different phenomena, and that produces testable claims, which have been supported by a staggering amount of evidence. There is nothing that "imposes" laws on our universe. Laws are human attempts to understand relations between different phenomena.

[Truth Matters]

Christ’s resurrection witnessed by hundreds.

Outside of the bible, where is this recorded?

---

Gravity isn't science. Gravity is a Law imposed on our Universe.
Science presumes gravity exists, but cannot cause gravity. We believe gravity exists based on experiences of it, but cannot prove it without arguing in circles.

I think this single statement show your inability to to reason more than anything else.

Cannot prove gravity without arguing in circles?

You sir, have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Then prove what gravity is - without arguing in circles
Try to debate me Atheist. We'll see who gets shredded in reason.

---

Guys, you are talking to a (presumably) walking caricature of a cartoon caricature of an awfully dumb bird.

A character that incidentally is loud mouthed, opinionated, obnoxious and ill informed.

Co-incidence much?

You and your faithful Atheist brethren have utterly failed to demonstrate a single flaw in my arguments.

I challenge you to demonstrate one.

You're a toothless rodent.